Boynton v. Pedrick’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “* * * The use of inventories in computing income results in stating the expenses of a year's operations in terms of the cost of the goods actually sold during that year. Thus the profit from these operations will be stated accurately only if the income from all sales made during the year is taken into consideration. This requires use of the accrual method of determining income, since the cash receipts methods obviously does not reflect the actual sales made during the year where, as in the present case, a substantial part of these sales — from 90 to 95 per cent according to the finding — is made on credit.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Estate of Iverson v. Commissioner · Wilkinson-Beane, Inc. v. Commissioner

2. “* * * Both the Herberger and the Caldwell cases sustained the validity of Regulation 29.41-2. It is not quite clear whether in those cases the cash receipts and disbursements method was held to `not clearly reflect the income' as a matter of law or on the basis that a correct factual finding had been made by the Tax Court. In my opinion the cash receipts method as a matter of law does not clearly reflect income here. The regulation requires the use of an accrual method. The validity of the regulations is a question of law. 21 "* * * But where as here, there is only one standard accountting practice, which overwhelmingly surpasses the cash receipts and disbursements method in accuracy, an accrual method of accounting is required in reporting income as a matter of law.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Estate of Iverson v. Commissioner · Estate of John Iverson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Mardrid Reite Davison v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Estate of John Iverson, and Ellen Myers and Charlotte Schaeffer, Co-Executrices of the Estate of Alvilda Iverson, Deceased v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Ellen Myers and Charlotte Schaeffer, Co-Executrices of the Estate of Alvilda Iverson, Deceased v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

3. “The regulations themselves state that: Section 471 provides two tests to which each inventory must conform: (1) It must conform as nearly as may be to the best accounting practice in the trade or business, and (2) It must clearly reflect the income, (b) It follows, therefore, that inventory rules cannot be uniform but must give effect to trade customs which come with in the scope of the best accounting practice in the particular trade or business. In order to clearly reflect income, the inventory practice of a taxpayer should be consistent from year to year, and greater weight is to be given to consistency than to any particular method of inventorying or basis of valuation so long as the method or basis used is in accord with §§ 1.471-1 through 1.471 — 11.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 523 F. Supp. 1022 - Memphis Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. United States