In Re Premo’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably Purcell v. United States (1993), Honey v. United States (1992)
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
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 11 U.S.C. § 502 · 11 U.S.C. § 727 · 26 U.S.C. § 446 · 26 U.S.C. § 6001 · 26 U.S.C. § 6671 · 26 U.S.C. § 6672 · 26 U.S.C. § 7422 · 26 U.S.C. § 7501
Relies on Welch v. Helvering · Helvering v. Taylor · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co. · Bull v. United States · Ohio v. Kentucky
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where the taxpayer’s discretion in the use of funds is subject to restrictions imposed by a creditor holding a security interest in the funds which is superior to any interest claimed by the IRS, the funds are regarded as encumbered if those restrictions preclude the taxpayer from using the funds to pay the trust fund taxes.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“As previously noted, § 6671 speaks of a “duty” to perform the act in question. The term “duty” is defined as “obligatory tasks, conduct, service, or functions that arise from one’s position.” Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1985)____ Use of the adjective “obligatory” in this definition is consistent with the reference in § 6672(a) to the person “required” to collect and pay the withholding taxes. The word “authority,” on the other hand, is defined as the “power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior.” Id. These definitions suggest that the terms “duty” and “authority” are not synonymous. The notion of a duty implies an affirmative obligation to perform specific acts, whereas “authority” is by its nature discretionary. A high-level corporate officer, for example, may have the authority to “command” that any number of actions be taken, but that does not mean that he or she is obliged or required to do so. To equate authority (or power or the right to exercise control) with duty, as the IRS would have us do, would expand the scope of §§ 6671 and 6672 in a manner which appears unwarranted by the language of these provisions. [ 116 B.R. at 525 ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cooperstein v. State“[T]he practice in bankruptcy of requiring the claimant to prove his claim is in essence an application of the general rule allocating the burden of proof to the moving party. Those cases which have invoked this rule even when the claimant is a taxing authority have done so on the basis that (1) the Code lacks any provision which distinguishes government claims from claims of private entities ... and (2) the IRS should be "treated like any other claimant under the Bankruptcy Code because the estate is a party in interest and not just the taxpayer.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.