Heininger v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
133 F.2d 567 · 1943
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1969 · most notably Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Heininger (1943), Lilly v. Commissioner (1952)
15 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 23
Relies on Welch v. Helvering · United States v. Sullivan · Kornhauser v. United States · Textile Mills Securities Corp. v. Commissioner · Foss 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the Heininger case, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in referring to such distinction [i. e., between the lawful or unlawful character of the business expense] said: “ ‘* * * Congress has not said that discrimination shall be made. Neither has the Department had the hardihood to make such a material change by way ■of its regulations. If this change is to be made and the policy altered, let Congress do it. Congress would need only to add the word “legal” before the word “trade” in the third line of Section 23(a) (1). “ ‘We are asked, in the guise of construing the words “ordinary and necessary”, to amend the statute. In other words, to engage in a little judicial legislation. We decline the invitation’.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If the deduction in the case at bar was not an ordinary and necessary expense to the ‘carrying on’ of the business, we are unable to understand the English language. Without this expense, there would have been no business. Without the business, there would have been no income. Without the income, there would have been no tax. To say that this expense is not ordinary and necessary is to say that that which gives life is not ordinary and necessary.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We think that where an expense is incurred which saves the life of a business, even for a time, it is, * * * not only a business expense, but a necessary business expense. Without the expenditure, there would have been no income in this case because there would have been no business. The business depended directly upon the expense incurred in the litigation. We therefore hold that the expense was both ordinary and necessary.””
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.