Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 134 F.3d 1405 - Brennan

Brennan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
2
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

7 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Arco Environmental Remediation v. Department of Health and Environmental Quality of the State of Montana (2000), 460 F. Supp. 2d 139 - Ross v. United States (2006)

7 district · 3 state decisions

270199020002010decided

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

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 4261

Relies on Carnegie v. United States · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley · Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co. · Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland · Flora v. United States

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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The sweeping role which petitioner assigns these words is based upon a conjunctive reading of “any internal-revenue tax,” “any penalty,” and “any sum.” But we believe that the statute more readily lends itself to the disjunctive reading which is suggested by the connective “or.” That is, “any sum,” instead of being related to “any internal-revenue tax” and “any penalty,” may refer to amounts which are neither taxes nor penalties. Under this interpretation, the junction of the phrase is to permit suit for recovery of items which might not be designated as either “taxes” or “penalties” by Congress or the courts. One obvious example of such a “sum” is interest. And it is significant that many old tax statutes described the amount which was to be assessed under certain circumstances as a “sum” to be added to the tax, simply as a “sum,” as a “pereen-tum,” or as “costs.” 38”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Accepting a [claimant’s] characterization that his suit did not involve a refund because the IRS lacked authority to collect the tax in the first instance “would render § 7422 virtually a dead letter because almost every citizen who seeks a tax refund alleges that the tax was collected without authority.””
    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.