Mack v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate ·

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

1. ““ § 113. Adjusted basis for determining gain or loss— “(a) Basis (unadjusted) of property. The basis of property shall be the cost of such property; except that— * * * “(5) Property transmitted at death. “If the property was acquired by bequest, devise, or inheritance, or by the decedent’s estate from the decedent, the basis shall be the fair market value of such property at the time of such acquisition. * * * ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 168 F. Supp. 636 - Valleskey v. Nelson · Milliken v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Milliken

2. ““We hold that the respondent acquired the property on November 30, 1916. The option itself was property, and doubtless was valuable. If it had been assignable, and the lessee had sold it at a profit, taxable gain would have resulted from the sale. But the option is admittedly not the same property as the land. So conceding, the respondent still insists that ownership of the option created an interest in the land. * * * “ * * * The capital asset, sale of which resulted in taxable gain, was the land. This was not an asset of the taxpayer prior to the exercise of the option. We think it clear that there was no combination of two capital assets, — the option and $200,-000 of cash, to form a new capital asset, the land, which was subsequently sold at a profit. * * * ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kalbac v. Commissioner · John J. Kalbac and Dorothy Kalbac v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, John G. Kiske and Clara Kiske v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

3. ““Petitioner insists that the cost of the shares to him, was the cash he paid, plus the value of the option which he exercised; and were the case of first impression, this contention would doubtlessly appear to be fortified by able and persuasive reasoning of counsel. But this issue has been determined adversely to petitioner’s contention in Helvering v. San Joaquin Fruit & Investment Co., 297 U.S. 496 , 56 S.Ct. 569 , 80 L.Ed. 824 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kalbac v. Commissioner · John J. Kalbac and Dorothy Kalbac v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, John G. Kiske and Clara Kiske v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue