"buyer aS did not gain a trustee or dominion agent for over the the seller, ~ugh transactions contradict a sale, poses that the seller loses not only Esperson MacQueen ve V. Comtr, 49 F, (24) 259 (C, Co. v. Com'r, 67. F, (2a) 8B? e% ni 3 $ %. jellebuah 2 v. Com'r, surnet v, Lexington foods, the but acted taxpayer. whieh title presup-— but control. C. A. 8)y (C, C. Ay 65 7, (2a) 902 (©. Cy, Ay 6); I, & C, Co,., 62 F, (@d) 908 pi ad S. Baw B):é$ 47 F.387(24) 0, & v,G, Co. (C. C,( CC,A. C,4); A, Taylor 108 5)} Atkins Comtr,v. 76Com'r, F. (2d) ag Ui Oe Ay C. C. As B)t and Shoenberg the But ). transaction, the very in 1% is not enough for court sellerts Fed, 20 power must be the shereholders that undo v, 609, all transactions to undo Behan, 6ll, (2a) 446 reserved it, | and with they sale; the are supra, said, in citing the Shoenberg "Nor can of these either F, if it is to vitlate the unite In + Commissioner the 77 example corporations; they must hot bound to unite," 90 Comtr, together may of a company v. case: sellers be justly eondemned because they acted lawfullyto take ad-. vantage of the privilege of deducting sustained Losses, Presumably the law which gives the right sufficient justification for the exercise of the is right. Moreover, no one now can sey with assurance Ghat the government will eventually receive less in taxation because of these sales, They ¢reated a new bagis for the property in the hands of new owners, "Tne cases relied on by the Commissioner are all distinguishable, im that they dealt with dispositions of property not Legally the equivalent of ebsolute un restrictec sales, but left the seller in a position of control through some exercise of right in one way Gr another, The ebllity to take edvantage of such control in realization gpite of In ~ U. of the ostensible deductible S, v, Galveston—Houston 84 Fed, 2d 616 the eourt foreclosure sales prevented losses," (CCA 1), was considering transactions of a corporate mortgage, Electric involved in which in: a new Co., the the