Scherf v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. ““Each partner as an individual pays taxes on his distributive share of the net income from the business whether distributed or not.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hulbert v. Commissioner · Bruce W. Hulbert v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Charles H. Edwards v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

2. “In determining tax consequences arising out of efforts to form partnerships, therefore, analogies are to be mainly sought and found not in cases dealing with corporations and their business activities but in those dealing with individuals and their business activities. If this is so, and we think that it may not be doubted that it is, it ought to be clear that the device of using the partnership form to separate the tree from its fruits, the earner from the income, will be no more effective in fact and in law than similar and related schemes of individuals have been. Textbooks and decisions on tax law are strewn with the wrecks of abortive schemes of individuals to achieve the greatly desired end of dividing their income for tax purposes with persons who did not earn it. 15 "Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 , 50 S.Ct. 241, 74 L.Ed. 731 * * * are leading cases establishing the rule that `the dominant purpose of the revenue laws is the taxation of income to those who earn or otherwise create the right to receive it and enjoy the benefit of it when paid.' The Tower [(Commissioner v. Tower), 327 U. S. 280 , 66 S.Ct. 532, 90 L.Ed. 670], and Lusthaus [(Lauthaus v. Commissioner), 327 U.S. 293 , 66 S.Ct. 539, 90 L.Ed. 679] cases merely apply the rule to situations where the Tax Court has found that individuals are attempting through pseudo-partnerships to do the forbidden thing, separate earner from income, the tree from its fruits.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Batman v. Commissioner

3. “Whatever the case may be as to contributions made by Scherf's sons in years following 1940, the tax year in question, and their effect to make the partnership as to them a real one for tax purposes for those years, * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Campbell v. Batman