Ewald v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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

1. ““It is clear that it was the congressional purpose to fix a longer period of limitation regardless of the intention of the taxpayer where the sum omitted from gross income was 25 percent or more. As we view it the act is so plain that it can have but one interpretation. The word ‘omits’ is in no way qualified by the context of the Revenue Act. If it had been the intention of the framers of the act to qualify it so as to apply only to negligent omission, the word ‘negligently’ easily could have been inserted. Ordinarily the word ‘omit’ means to disregard, to fail, forbear, neglect to mention, or to fail to insert or include. In fact, the meaning of the word includes the failure to do all things that could be done under the circumstances.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Carew v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Meurer Steel Barrel Co. v. Commissioner

2. “It is not believed that taxpayers who are so negligent as to leave out of their returns items of such magnitude should be accorded the privilege of pleading the bar of the statute”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Uptegrove Lumber Co. v. Commissioner

3. “omits from gross income an amount properly includible therein which is in excess of 25 per centum of the amount of gross income stated in the return”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Uptegrove Lumber Co. v. Commissioner