Gillespie v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
128 F.2d 140 · 1942
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
June 1973
most recently cited
6 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Bodine v. Commissioner · Corbett Investment Co. v. Helvering · Mastin v. Commissioner · Klein v. Commissioner · Citizens Nat. Bank v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Internal Revenue Code— “Sec. 22 [as amended by Revenue Act of 1942, c. 619, 56 Stat. 798 . Sec. 120]. Gross Income. ****** “(b) Exclusions from gross income. The following items shall not be included in gross income and shall be exempt from taxation under this chapter: * * * * * * : “(2) Annuities, etc. “ (A) In general. * * * Amounts received as an annuity under .an annuity or endowment contract shall be included in gross income; except that there shall be excluded from gross income the excess of the amount received in the taxable year over an amount equal to 3 per centum of the aggregate premiums or consideration paid for such annuity (whether or not paid during such year), until the aggregate amount excluded from gross income under this chapter or pri- or income tax laws in respect of such annuity equals the aggregate premiums or consideration paid for such annuity. * * * .. 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 22 <b) (2) (A). “§ 117. Capital gains and losses. “(a) Definitions. As used in this chapter— ****** “(b) Percentage taken into account In the case of a taxpayer, other than a corporation, only the following percentages of the gain or loss recognized upon the sale or exchange of a capital asset shall be taken into account in computing net * * * income: 26 U.S.C.A. Int. Rev.Code, § 117(b). * * * * * # “50 per centum if the capital asset has been held for more than 24 months.” Treasury Regulations 111— “Sec. 29.22 (b) (2)-2. Annuities.— Amounts received as an annuity under a”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Petitioner (the taxpayer’s executor) contends that the contract was not an annuity contract, but was merely a contract whereby the taxpayer and her husband transferred property to the corporation. Actually, it was a contract whereby the taxpayer and her husband transferred property to the corporation and, in consideration thereof, the corporation agreed * * * to pay each of them $15,000 a year for life * * *. We think that, in so far as it related to the payments of $15,000 each to the taxpayer and her husband, this was an annuity contract. Commissioner v. John C. Moore Corporation, 2 Cir., 42 F.2d 186 , 188; Continental Illinois Bank & Trust Co. v. Blair, 7 Cir., 45 F.2d 345 , 346; Bodine v. Commissioner, 3 Cir., 103 F.2d 982 , 984. “That the contract was not labeled ‘annuity contract’ is immaterial. Bodine v. Commissioner, supra. Nor is it material that the consideration for the annuity granted by the contract was paid in property instead of cash. Commissioner v. John C. Moore Corporation, supra. It is likewise immaterial, if true, that the corporation was not authorized by law to make an annuity contract; for, whether authorized or not, such a contract was made and payments thereunder were received by the taxpayer. Whether the contract was valid or not we have no occasion now to inquire.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * The husband and wife do hereby sell * * * to the corporation all of the real and personal property now standing in their names * * *. In consideration thereof, the corporation agrees to pay to the husband and wife each, respectively, the sum of fifteen thousand * * * dollars per year as long as they respectively live * *”
2 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.