Commissioner v. Mesta’s Empirical Analysis
123 F.2d 986 · 1941
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1985 · most notably United States v. Davis (1962), Collins v. Oklahoma Tax Commission (1968)
21 federal appellate · 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
Relies on Helvering v. Horst · Mesta v. Commissioner · Rea v. Commissioner · Dixon v. Commissioner · Shoop's Appeal
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We think that we may make the practical assumption that a man who spends money or gives property of a fixed value for an unliquidated claim is getting his money's worth.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Admittedly not all economic gain of the taxpayer is taxable income. From the beginning the revenue laws have been interpreted as defining ‘realization’ of income as the taxable event rather than the acquisition of the right to receive it. And ‘realization’ is not deemed to occur until the income is paid. But the decisions and regulations have consistently recognized that receipt in cash or property is not the only characteristic of realization of income to a taxpayer on the cash receipts basis. Where the taxpayer does not receive payment of income in money or property realization may occur when the last step is taken by which he obtains the fruition of the economic gain which has already accrued to him.” * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. King v. Commissioner“There is no doubt that Mesta achieved a capital gain. He paid $7,574.56 for stock which when disposed of in discharge of his obligation to Mrs. Mesta was worth $156,975. Had the stock not been transferred, he would not have achieved a taxable gain because the economic gain would have been unrealized. The disposition of the stock was the táxable event in the case at bar. This is so even though Mesta may not have received payment in money or property from Mrs. Mesta. * * *”
1 later decision 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.