Bingham v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s Empirical Analysis
105 F.2d 971 · 1939
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently December 1984 · most notably Sanders v. Commissioner (1955), Commissioner v. Starr Bros. (1953)
56 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 101 · 26 U.S.C. § 23
Relies on Old Colony Co v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co. · Fairbanks v. United States · DeGanay v. Lederer · Hale v. Helvering
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““What may have been property in the hands of the holder of the notes simply vanished when the surrender took place and the maker received them. He then had, at most, only his own obligations to pay himself. Any theoretical concept of a sale of the notes to the maker in return for what he gave up to get them back must yield before the hard fact that he received nothing which was property in his hands but had merely succeeded in extinguishing his liabilities by the amounts which were due on the notes. There was, therefore, no sale of the notes to him in the ordinary meaning of the word and no exchange of assets for assets since the notes could not, as assets, survive the transaction. That being so, such a settlement as the one this petitioner made involved neither a sale nor an exchange of capital assets within the meaning of the statute.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The petitioner apparently did at all times before 1932 have reasonable cause to believe that he could enforce the partial payment of the notes by resorting to the mortgage securing them. While he had such reasonable expectation of partial payment, he could not charge off the entire debt as worthless nor was he bound to make any charge-off.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Peters v. Sheehan
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.