Flanagan v. Helvering’s Empirical Analysis
116 F.2d 937 · 1940
Citation profile
109 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 187 later decisions — most recently July 1978 · most notably Ferro v. Commissioner (1957), Earle v. Woodlaw (1957)
109 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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 26 U.S.C. § 115
Relies on McGuire v. Commissioner · Hyman v. Helvering · Brown v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Natwick v. Commissioner · Commissioner v. Babson
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 187 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Internal Revenue Code: “§ 115. Distributions by corporations * * * * * “(g) Redemption of stock. * * * If a corporation cancels or redeems its stock (whether or not such stock was issued as a stock dividend) at such 'time and in such manner as to make the distribution and cancellation or redemption in whole or in part essentially- equivalent to the distribution of a taxable dividend, the amount so distributed in redemption or cancellation-of the stock, to the extent that it represents a distribution of earnings or profits accumulated after February 28,. 1913, shall be treated as a taxable dividend.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * the net effect of the distribution rather than the motives and plans of the taxpayer or his corporation, is the fundamental question in administering § 115(g).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Most of the judicial criteria that have been determinative in placing a transaction within § 115(g) are presented in the instant case. The major part of the capitalization represented former earnings; only two relatively small cash dividends were paid; the proportional ownership of the shareholders was not changed; the corporation did not manifest any policy of contraction; the initiative for the corporate distribution came from a stockholder who needed cash; it has continued to operate at a profit. Absent here is the maintenance of the same capital liability, and there is no finding of a scheme of tax evasion (bad faith), factors sometimes significant. But the net effect of the distribution rather than the motives and plans of the taxpayer or his corporation, is the fundamental question in administering § 115(g).””
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.