Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 148 F.2d 913 - Barnhill v. Commissioner

Barnhill v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

148 F.2d 913 · 1945

Citation profile

102
cited by 102 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
September 1999
most recently cited

59 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 102 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1999 · most notably Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Flowers (1946), United States v. Correll (1967)

59 federal appellate · 2 district ·

390194519501960197019801990decided

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. § 23

Relies on Dobson v. Commissioner · Helvering v. Winmill · United States v. Pelzer · Bixler v. Commissioner · Coburn v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

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

  1. “[I]t is not reasonable to suppose that Congress intended to allow as a business expense those outlays which are not caused by the exigencies of the business but by the action of the taxpayer in having his home, for his own convenience, at a distance from his business. Such expenditures are not essential to the prosecution of the business and were not within the contemplation of Congress which proceeded on the assumption that a business man would live within reasonable proximity to his business.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the regulations * * * expressly forbid the deduction of commuters’ fares. This prohibition indeed would be unauthorized if the word “home” were given its ordinary meaning, for there can be no doubt that in a literal sense one who lives in the suburbs and does business in the city must pay travel expenses while absent from his home in the pursuit of business. It is significant that these provisions of the regulations have been maintained and enforced throughout successive re-enactments of the statute and that they have been followed not only in the decisions of the Tax Court but in the settled administrative practice. See O.D. 905, 4 Cum. Bull. 212 (1921) ; O.D. 1021, 5 Cum. Bull. 174 (1921) ; I.T. 1264, 1-1 Cum. Bull. 122 (1922) ; I.T. 1355, 1-1 Cum. Bull. 194 (1922) ; I.T. 1380, 1-2 Cum. Bull. 88 (1922) ; I.T. 3314, 1939-2 Cum. Bull. 152; G.C.M 23672, 1943 Cum. Bull. 66. Under these circumstances, the regulations and the administrative interpretation must be deemed to have received implied legislative approval. Helvering v. Winmill, 305 U.S. 79, 83 , 59 S. Ct. 45 , 83 L.Ed. 52 . * * *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(a) Expenses.— (1) TRADE OR BUSINESS EXPENSES.- (A) In General. — * * *• traveling expenses (including the entire amount expended for meals and lodging) while away from home in the pursuit of 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.