I am looking for someone who is good in American Tax Laws

A brief of New Colonial Ice, 292 U.S. 435 (1934) Facts: In 1922, all of the assets and liabilities of an existing corporation were transferred to create a newly formed corporation. The new corporation's stock and debt were held in the same manner as the stock and debt of the old corporation. The new company was formed to assume the debts and manage the business of the old and was created to replace the old because of legal problems with the old company's capital stock and the funding of its equity. Issues: 1) Is there a provision in the tax law which allows a successor corporation to inherit the tax loss carryovers of its predecessor? 2) Is the new corporation the same taxpayer as the old, for purposes of utilizing the tax loss carryovers of the old corporation? Analysis: The court first determined that statutes allowing deductions must be narrowly construed and that deductions will be denied unless there is a "clear provision" for them. The section, 204(b) which allowed the carryover of tax losses, states, in pertinent part, that if a "taxpayer has sustained a net loss" in one year then it may be used as a deduction against the income of "the taxpayer" in the succeeding year. Thus, the first question the court addressed was whether the new corporation could inherit the tax loss of the former, as a matter of law. The court, using the standard for interpreting the law that a deduction can be allowed only where it is clearly provided, determined that section 204(b) meant only that "the taxpayer who sustained the loss is the one to whom the deduction shall be allowed." Because the statute's words are "plain and free from ambiguity" it provides no support for the taxpayer's argument. The court next addressed the second question of whether the new corporation was, for purposes of this statute, the same taxpayer as the old. The court disliked this assertion and, first, noted that the old and new corporations were separate legal entities. The court also pointed out that regarding them as the same entity contradicted the stockholders' and creditors' intentions in creating the new corporation and abandoning the old in that they did this solely in order for the new to be free of the old's possible legal entanglements. Thus, the owners of the corporation, by taking this action, both demonstrated that they regarded the new corporation as legally distinct from the old and benefited from that distinction. The court implied that it was inconsistent and unconvincing for one to argue for a point that was contradicted by one's own actions. Conclusion: Because the statute allowing the carryover of net losses does not allow a successor corporation to inherit the losses of its predecessor and because the successor and predecessor are distinct, separate legal entities and not the same taxpayer, no loss carryover to the new corporation from the old corporation was allowed. [Historical note: in reaction to this case, Congress changed the law to allow successor corporations to inherit such loss carryovers if the successor was controlled by substantially the same shareholders and continued to operate the business of the old corporation.] �