United States v. Mississippi Chemical Corporation70-521971Burger Court (1972-1975)burger4https://api.oyez.org/courts/burger4United StatesMississippi Chemical Corporation, Costal Chemical Corp1972-01-101972-03-061971-02-224052981972https://api.oyez.org/case_citation/case_citation/14635https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/298/Writ of <i>certiorari</i><p>Mississippi Chemical Corp. and Costal Chemical Corp. were “cooperate associations” within the meaning of the Agricultural Marketing Act. The associations qualified for membership in a “bank for Cooperatives”, which allowed them to borrow money. The Farm Credit Act of 1955 required that the associations buy Class “C” stocks valued at $100. The associations claimed a $99 interest deduction on their taxes for every stock purchased. When the Internal Revenue Service disallowed the deduction, the associations paid the deficiency and then sued for a refund. The district court found for the associations and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed.</p> Mississippi Chemical Corp. and Costal Chemical Corp. were “cooperate associations” within the meaning of the Agricultural Marketing Act. The associations qualified for membership in a “bank for Cooperatives”, which allowed them to borrow money. The Farm Credit Act of 1955 required that the associations buy Class “C” stocks valued at $100. The associations claimed a $99 interest deduction on their taxes for every stock purchased. When the Internal Revenue Service disallowed the deduction, the associations paid the deficiency and then sued for a refund. The district court found for the associations and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed.<p>No. In a unanimous decision, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the majority opinion reversing the lower court and remanding. Looking at the legislative scheme involved, the Supreme Court held that the stock was a capitol asset with long-term value, so it was not deductible. Justice Harry A. Blackmun did not participate.</p> No. In a unanimous decision, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the majority opinion reversing the lower court and remanding. Looking at the legislative scheme involved, the Supreme Court held that the stock was a capitol asset with long-term value, so it was not deductible. Justice Harry A. Blackmun did not participate.Matthew J. Zinnhttps://api.oyez.org/people/matthew_j_zinnJohn C. Satterfieldhttps://api.oyez.org/people/john_c_satterfieldWilliam O. Douglashttps://api.oyez.org/people/william_o_douglasPotter Stewarthttps://api.oyez.org/people/potter_stewartThurgood Marshallhttps://api.oyez.org/people/thurgood_marshallWilliam J. Brennan, Jr.https://api.oyez.org/people/william_j_brennan_jrByron R. Whitehttps://api.oyez.org/people/byron_r_whiteWarren E. Burgerhttps://api.oyez.org/people/warren_e_burgerHarry A. Blackmunhttps://api.oyez.org/people/harry_a_blackmunLewis F. Powell, Jr.https://api.oyez.org/people/lewis_f_powell_jrWilliam H. Rehnquisthttps://api.oyez.org/people/william_h_rehnquisthttps://api.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-52D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\json_data\api.oyez.org_cases_1971_70-52.json