(dissenting).
The immorality and the unethical character of the procedure followed by the taxpayer with such success is appreciated. However, in the light of the statement of the Commissioner, that:
“[I]n this case, the taxpayer, by the payment of kickbacks to employees, entered a special market, gained a substantial volume of sales, and became the country’s largest manufacturer of draperies for mobile homes.”
and the opinion of the Tax Court that these amounts were:
“ * * * paid by petitioner [taxpayer] to Conte, Eckstein and Bergner for the purpose of obtaining their employers’ business * * * ”
and, further, that:
“There is no question that petitioner’s arrangement with Conte, Eckstein, and Bergner was advantageous to its enterprise. Subsequent to this arrangement, petitioner developed from a small supplier of custom-made draperies for retail buyers with gross sales in 1954 of $123,-239.41 to the largest supplier of draperies to the mobile home industry with gross sales in 1960 of $437,-761.93.”
it is my view that these payments were ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in the taxpayer’s business within the meaning of the applicable regulations.
I believe that the methods used by the taxpayer in the instant case should be prohibited, but that this beneficent result should be attained by Congressional action and not by court edict.