Doll v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
149 F.2d 239 · 1945
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently February 1970 · most notably Falsone v. United States (1953), Estate of Edward H. Luehrmann, Deceased v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1961)
49 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 Hormel v. Helvering · Helvering v. Clifford · Helvering v. Horst · Eisner v. Macomber · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court Holding Co
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is in the realm of intra-family assignments and transfers that the Clifford-Horst line of cases has peculiar applicability. While specifically relating to short-term family trust, the Clifford case makes clear that where the parties to a transfer are members of the same family group special scrutiny is necessary ‘lest what is in reality but one economic un.it be multiplied into two or more by devices which, though valid under state law, are not conclusive so far as § 22(a) is concerned.’ * * “The principles which have thus been recognized and developed by the Clifford and Horst cases, and those following them, are directly applicable to the transfer of patent license contracts between members of the same family. They are guideposts for those who seek to determine in a particular instance whether such an assignor retains sufficient control over the assigned contracts or over the receipt of income by the assignee to make it fair to impose income tax liability on him. * * * * * * “ * * * As to the legal foundation of the Tax Court’s judgment on the tax consequences of the assignments, we are unable to say that its inferences and conclusions from those facts are unreasonable in the light of the pertinent statutory or administrative provisions or that they are inconsistent with any of the principles enunciated in the CliffordHorst line of cases. Indeed, due regard for those principles leads one inescapably to the Tax Court’s result. The taxpayer’s purported assignment to his w”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the realities of the taxpayer's economic interest rather than the niceties of the conveyancer's art should determine the power to tax.”
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.