Helvering v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis
126 F.2d 270 · 1942
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently December 1989
13 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 White v. Higgins · Wenger v. Commissioner · Rollins v. Helvering · Kaplan v. Commissioner · Morton v. Commissioner
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may, in the discretion of the grantor or of any person not having a substantial adverse interest in the disposition of such part of the income, be distributed to the grantor”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in No. 13,785 v. Robert Makransky, of the Estate of Harry Makransky, and Helen Makransky. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in Nos. 13,786, 13,787 v. Emanuel Moss and Sylvia Moss. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in Nos. 13,788, 13,789 v. Hilda B. Schneider. Trust Under Deed of Joseph Binenstock (Deceased), Girard Trust Corn Exchange Bank, Theodora B. Jacobs, Sylvia B. Moss, Hilda B. Schneider (Formerly Hilda B. Raines), Helen B. Makransky, John Tait and Albert Barnes Zink, Trustees, in Nos. 13,790, 13,791 v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in Nos. 13,792, 13,793 v. Allen C. Jacobs and Theodora B. Jacobs · Commissioner v. Makransky“The so-called contingencies, “any accident, sickness, calamity, misfortune, adversity, bereavement or loss, financially or otherwise”, the occurrence of one of which gives rise to the right to call for distributions from the trust, are so broad and all-embracing that the use and enjoyment of the income and, if necessary, the corpus by petitioner, is, for practical purposes, almost as complete as if she had retained title to the property. Petitioner has merely set aside in the hands of a trustee an amount of her excess capital to be held and accumulated as a protection to herself and her children against a “rainy day.” These named contingen-eies permit her, if she cares to do so, and secures the acquiescense of the trustee, to cause the expenditure of the income, and if necessary the corpus, for the needs for which she would normally have used and expended the property had no trust been created. * * *”
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.