Kings Co Sav Inst v. Blair’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 federal appellate · 21 district · 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 144 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(a) No suit prior to filing claim for refund.—“No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary or his delegate, * *”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Flora v. United States · Grier v. Tucker

2. ““Section 1318 provides that ‘no suit * * * shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been * * * illegally * * * collected * * * until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner of Internal'' Revenue, according to the provisions of law-in that regard, and the regulations of the Secretary of the -Treasury. * * *’ Article 1036, Treasury Regulations 62, provides that claim for refund shall be made on form 843, and that ‘all the facts relied upon in support of the claim should be clearly set forth under oath.’ “Respondent filed an application under oath for reduction of its 1917 tax liability and for a corresponding return of taxes paid, on form 843, which it designated a claim ‘for refund of taxes illegally collected.’ But the sole ground stated for the demanded reduction of tax was that respondent had filed with the Commissioner an application for special relief from the amount of its excess profits tax under section 210 of the Act of 1917, 40 Stat. 307 [chap. 63]. “That section provides for a special method of assessment of excess profits taxes in any case where the Secretary of the Treasury is unable satisfactorily to determine the invested capital of the taxpayer. It has no relation to deductions from gross income on account of exhaustion or obsolescence of patents. In support of its claim, which was ultimately allowed in part, respondent prepared and filed a brief, and an oral argument was held i”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tucker v. Alexander · Stutz Motor Car Co. of America v. United States

3. ““(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the Court of Claims, of: (1) (As amended by Sec. 1, Act of July 30, 1954, c. 648, 68 Stat. 589 ) Any civil action agairst the United States for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority or any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collecteci under the internal-revenue laws * !.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Flora v. United States