Adams v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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

1. ““Some emphasis is placed, both by the Board and the Commissioner, on the fact that some or all of the deductions claimed here were claimed also in connection with returns for income taxation of the estate. There is no necessary inconsistency in claiming the deductions as to both estate taxes and also as to income taxes of the estate. The two taxes are different in theory and incidence. It is for the Congress to prescribe what, if any, deductions are to be allowed as to each. Also, it is for the Congress to declare that there shall be but one deduction and where that shall be permitted. Congress has prescribed separately the deductions allowable for estate tax purposes and for income tax purposes. Congress has not declared that these deductions shall, in any way, be affected by the circumstances — often of occurrence — that the same items might come within each of the separate deduction provisions. It is not for the courts to supply this omission —if it be such — -in the statute. See Brown v. Commissioner [of Internal Revenue], 10 Cir., 74 F.2d 281, 286 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kreher v. United States · Commissioner Of Internal Revenue v. Mary E. Burrow Trust

2. “The prolongation of administration of an estate is a matter of concern purely of the court having the estate in charge. . The mere fact alone of prolongation of administration does not, under the law here applicable, have any effect upon the propriety of the deduction here sought. Id. If this language is read to mean that prolongation of administration alone will not invalidate an administration expense, we agree. Clearly, there are estates which require substantial periods of time for proper administration. If, on the other hand, this language is read to mean that the duration of administration is flatly irrelevant to the issue of deducti-bility, then we would reject the dicta. In Adams, the court expressly observed that the lengthy administration was “require[d]” by the “character of the bulk of the [estate’s] assets.” Id. at 582, 583 . Thus, the court had no occasion to consider the impact of unnecessary prolongation of administration on the question of deductibility of administration expenses.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hibernia Bank v. United States

3. “Both the Board and the Commissioner emphasize that the activities of the executor were essentially the same as the testator. Prom this situation, the conclusion is drawn that the executor was “carrying on a business” in a taxing sense. This does not follow. If there is a tax difference between the activities of an orderly administration and the carrying on of business by an executor, such is not measured by the prior activities of the testator. The gauge is whether certain activities of the executor are not such as properly fall within the duties of the executor in the collection and protection of the assets, the discharge of obligations, and the distribution of the residue.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Estate of Ferber v. Commissioner