Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 108 F.2d 639 - Commissioner v. Rabenold

Commissioner v. Rabenold’s Empirical Analysis

108 F.2d 639 · 1940

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
January 1982
most recently cited

5 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently January 1982

5 federal appellate ·

5019401950196019701980decided

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. § 51

Relies on Gould v. Gould · Crooks v. Harrelson · Woolford Realty Co. v. Rose · Edwards v. Slocum · Cole v. Commissioner

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The decision also introduces difficulties in enforcement of the tax. Take a case where husband and wife file a single return showing a tax due of $5,000, but no tax is paid. Must the government in such a case take on the task of discovering the separate income of each spouse and of pursuing each for his or her portion of the tax? Or take the case, a common one, where a joint return is filed and the tax shown due thereon is paid, but the commissioner later finds a deficiency. Must the commissioner not merely analyze all the figures and determine what part of the total tax was originally owed by each, but also find out, if he can, the contributions of each to the prior payments made on account of the tax and credit each accordingly? Such complexities in tax gathering ‘are not lightly to be imputed to legislators.’ Edwards v. Slocum, 264 U.S. 61, 63 , 44 S.Ct. 293 , 68 L.Ed. 564 .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Section 51 (b) of the bill expressly provides that the spouses, who exercise the privilege of filing a joint return, are jointly and severally liable for the tax computed upon their aggregate income. It is necessary, for administrative reasons, that any doubt as to the existence of such liability should be set at rest, if the privilege of filing such joint returns is continued.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.