Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 148 PACOMMW 62 - Fiore v. Commonwealth

Fiore v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
April 1996
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Ernest Renda Contracting Co. v. Commonwealth · Commonwealth v. Beck Electric Construction, Inc. · Anastasi Bros. v. Commonwealth · Commonwealth v. Beck Electric Construction, Inc. · 109 Pa. Commw. 101 - BRUCE & MERRILEES ELEC. CO. v. Com. of Pa.

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

  1. “The taxpayer, Fiore [Trucking and Contracting], is a proprietorship licensed by the Department of Revenue for sales and use tax collection and remittance. Fiore purchased liquid fuel, depreciable equipment, parts, tires, repairs, mobile homes, an airplane and other property, and also leased certain trucks, all of which provide the basis for sales and use tax assessments. William Fiore also owned and operated other proprietorships operated under various trade names including Mill Industrial Service Company, Diamond Fuel, Diamond Excavating and Hauling, and Rolling Hills Village; William Fiore also was the sole shareholder and operator of Bill’s Trucking, Inc. These various entities had overlapping business activities and records, and the intermingling of their business activities appears to be responsible in large part for the difficulties in auditing the taxpayer and assessing the taxes owed by Fiore Trucking and Contracting Company. The taxpayer was audited by the Department of Revenue for the period January 1, 1975, through September 30, 1978, resulting in an assessment for a deficiency of $216,741.26 plus interest of $35,038.99 and a penalty of $52,609.86, or a total of $304,390.11. Fiore’s appeal to the Board of Finance and Revenue resulted in abatement of the penalty but affirmance of the deficiency and interest. The deficiency of $251,780.25 was appealed to the Commonwealth Court at docket number 925 C.D. 1980. During the pendency of the appeal of the first assessment, ”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Every person liable for any tax imposed by this article, or for the collection thereof, shall keep the records, render such statements, make the returns and comply with such rules and regulations as the department may, from time to time, prescribe regarding matters pertinent to his business—”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “925 C.D. 1980 Use Tax — $216,741.26 plus appropriate interest 895 C.D. 1985 Use Tax — $770,495.79 plus appropriate interest and penalties 1029 C.D. 1985 Fuel Use Tax — $81,728.57 plus appropriate interest and penalties.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.