Ott v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
141 F.3d 1306 · 1998
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently August 2012
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 6151 · 26 U.S.C. § 6401 · 26 U.S.C. § 6511 · 26 U.S.C. § 6513
Relies on Rosenman v. United States · Manning v. Seeley Tube & Box Co. · Thomas v. Mercantile Nat. Bank At Dallas · United States v. Dubuque Packing Co. · Ewing 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Tax Code provides: `when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary ... pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return).'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Subsection (1) resolves when the remittance of withholding tax by Baral’s employer was ‘paid’: Since Baral is a calendar year taxpayer, the $4,104 withheld from his wages during the 1988 calendar year was ‘paid’ on April 15, 1989. Subsection (2) determines when Baral’s remittance of estimated income tax was ‘paid’: Since the referenced § 6012 together with § 6072(a) requires that a calendar year taxpayer like Baral file his income tax return on the April 15th following the close of the calendar year, the $1,100 remitted as an estimated income tax in respect of Baral’s 1988 tax liability was likewise ‘paid’ on April 15, 1989. And both of these statutorily defined payment dates apply ‘[f]or purposes of section 6511,’ the provision directly at issue in this case. This means that, under § 6511(b)(2)(A), both remittances at issue (the withholding and the estimated income tax) fall before, and hence outside, the look-back period, which commenced on February 1, 1990. Because neither these remittances nor any others were ‘paid’ within the look-back period (February 1, 1990, to June 1, 1993), the ceiling on Baral’s requested credit of $1,175 is zero, and the Service was correct to deny the requested credit.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We * * * reject the estate’s argument that there can be no payment of tax before the IRS makes a formal assessment of the estate’s tax liability. An assessment is merely “a bookkeeping procedure that permits the government to bring its administrative apparatus to bear in collecting a tax.” * * * Most taxes are collected voluntarily, without an assessment; an assessment serves as the basis on which the IRS takes action against those who do not voluntarily pay their taxes on time.”
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.