Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 143 F.2d 466 - Goldsmith v. Commissioner

Goldsmith v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

143 F.2d 466 · 1944

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
1
states following
August 2009
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently August 2009 · most notably Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Wodehouse (1949), Leahy v. Commissioner (1986)

20 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

2501944195019601970198019902000decided

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

Relies on M. Witmark & Sons v. Pastime Amusement Co. · Photo-Drama Motion Picture Co. v. Social Uplift Film Corp. · 30 F. Supp. 830 - Westway Theatre, Inc. v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. · Avery v. Commissioner · Westway Theatre, Inc. v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.

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

  1. “they entitle the owner to prohibit various kinds of reproduction, and to relieve individuals of these prohibitions by licenses.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “for sale to customers in the ordinary course”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Nevertheless, the business may consist of selling these goods in ‘ordinary course’, to those whose custom the taxpayer seeks; and these are his ‘customers.’ That the purpose of Congress was also not to treat such transactions as ‘capital gains or losses’ is patent. Although each transaction is the sale of ‘property held by the taxpayer,’ it is not considered as separate, but the transactions are all massed together for tax purposes as a single source of ordinary income, quite as though the taxpayer were giving his services for hire upon separate occasions. How numerous such transactions must be the statute answers only by the test that collectively they must constitute a ‘trade or business.’ ””
    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.