Ehrman v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
120 F.2d 607 · 1941
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently October 1999 · most notably Rollingwood Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Bohannon v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1951), Louis Greenspon v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, (Three Cases). Anna Greenspon v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1956)
45 federal appellate · 3 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
Relies on Richards v. Commissioner · Commissioner v. Boeing · Welch v. Solomon
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) General. — Any lot or parcel which is part of a tract of real property in the hands of a taxpayer (other than a corporation) shall not be deemed to be held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of trade or business at the time of sale solely because of the taxpayer having subdivided such tract for purposes of sale or because of any activity incident to such subdivision or sale, if— * * * “(2) no substantial improvement that substantially enhances the value of the lot or parcel sold is made by the taxpayer on such tract while held by the taxpayer * * * “(b) Special rules for application of section.— * * * “(3). Necessary improvements.— No improvement shall be deemed a substantial improvement for purposes of subsection (a) if the lot or parcel is held by the taxpayer for a period of 10 years and if— * *”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We fail to see that the reasons behind a person’s entering into a business — whether it is to make money or whether it is to liquidate — should be determinative of the question of whether or not the gains resulting from sales are ordinary gains or capital gains. The sole question is — were the taxpayers in the business of subdividing real estate? If they were, then it seems indisputable that the property sold falls within the exception in the definition of capital assets in the statute above quoted —that is, that it constituted ‘property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business.’ ” 4”
5 later decisions 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.