Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 151 F.2d 441 - Davis v. Commissioner

Davis v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

151 F.2d 441 · 1945

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
August 2017
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Industrial Aggregate Co. v. United States (1960), Munson v. McGinnes (1960)

24 federal appellate · 2 district ·

23019451950196019701980199020002010decided

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 New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Heininger · Higgins v. Commissioner · Bingham's Trust v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Kornhauser v. United States

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

  1. “The purpose of section 23(a) (2), supra, was to relieve from the harshness of the rule announced in Higgins v. Commissioner, 312 U.S. 212 , and other cases of like import. It was intended to give a deduction for ordinary and necessary expenses to one not engaged in carrying on a business, limited, however, to the extent set forth in this subsection and under circumstances where such expenditures would be allowable to one engaged in carrying on a trade or business. * * * * * * * sjc * * We think it clear that Congress had no intention of changing the language of this section as construed by the Treasury regulations, which construction before 1942 had received the approval of the Supreme Court. In other words, the treatment of the selling commissions as an offset against the sale price and not deductible as an ordinary and necessary expense, except to dealers, was not to be disturbed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “selling commissions paid in connection with the disposition of securities may not be deducted as ordinary and necessary expenses by one not a dealer in securities, and [these] commissions are to be treated as offsets against the sale price in determining the gain or loss incident to the disposition of property.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(A) In general. All the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any 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.