Richardson v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
151 F.2d 102 · 1945
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently March 2007 · most notably Marie H. Hamm v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, William Hamm, Jr. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1963), Estate of Bright v. United States (1981)
28 federal appellate · 1 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 Rosenman v. United States · Guggenheim v. Helvering · Helvering v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. · Gamble v. Commissioner · Richardson v. Commissioner
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a skillful broker could within a reasonable period”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If the arguments of the petitioner were to prevail [relative to minor- ^ discounts], any cohesive family owning securities having a market value readily ascertainable from trading on the open public market ,, . f could organize a family holding corporation, transfer to such corporation, transfer to such the corporation the securities which it owns, and then deal with the stock of the family corporation on the basis that has by reason of petitioner’s arguments a market value of only approximately half of the market value 0f the securities owned by such a corporation, thus cutting in two gift taxes and estate taxes which would otherwise be payable on the transfer of the securities themselves, “We cannot agree. Closely-held stock of a family holding company which was never sold on the open market and was never intended by the organizers of the corporation to be sold, but was intended to be held by members of the family to evi dence their respective beneficial rights in securities which were bought and sold by the corporation and which were dealt in on the open market, can only be valued in any real or practical way by primarily considering the value of the securities owned by the corporation. Any other approach would, in our opinion, be futile.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““To me, at least, the findings and opinion when read together strongly suggest that the valuation adopted was based upon some such theory as was enunciated by the respondent’s experts whereby the controlling criterion of value for stock such as this was taken to be not its fair market value as provided in the applicable regulations of the Treasury Department but rather some notion of ‘intrinsic’ value. If so, the holding was erroneous. (Citing cases.) “Feeling that there is at least a substantial doubt as to whether the conclusion is based upon proper standards, I should favor a remand so that the Tax Court might have opportunity to correct the error if one was made or to remove the doubt which exists as to the standard which was actually applied. * * * My brothers, however, feel that the finding that the ‘fair market value’ was not less than $95,509 per share sufficiently attests the use of a proper standard and that this court should affirm the valuation as made.” (Emphasis added.)”
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.