Austin v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 federal appellate ·

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. ““It is well settled that the courts are not so much concerned with the refinements of title as with the actual command over the income which is taxed and the actual benefit for which the tax is paid. See Harrison v. Schaffner (and cases cited at pages 581, 582), 312 U.S. 579 , 61 S.Ct. 759 , 85 L.Ed. 1055 , in which the Supreme Court stated (p. 580) that the decision in Helvering v. Horst, supra, and in Helvering v. Eubank, 311 U.S. 122 , 61 S.Ct. 149 , 85 L.Ed. 81 , rested on the principle that ‘the power to dispose of income is the equivalent of ownership of it and that the exercise of the power to procure its payment to another, whether to pay a debt or to make a gift, is within the reach of the statute taxing income “derived from any source whatever” ’.” Id. at 668. He concluded as follows: “In conclusion, it may be well to refer again to Harrison v. Schaffner, 312 U.S. 579 , 582, 61 S.Ct. 759 , 761, 85 L.Ed. 1055 , wherein the Supreme Court said, with reference to Corliss v. Bowers, supra, Lucas v. Earl, supra, Helvering v. Horst, supra, Helvering v. Eubank, supra, and Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331 , 60 S.Ct. 554 , 84 L.Ed. 788 , that ‘in each of those cases it was held that one vested with the right to receive income did not escape the tax by any kind of anticipatory arrangement, however skillfully devised, by which he procures payment of it to another, since, by the exercise of his power to command the income, he enjoys the benefit of the income on which the tax ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Friedman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

2. ““The reasoning and the decision of the Tax Court is, in our judgment, sound. It is well settled that the courts are not so much concerned with the refinements of title as with the actual command over the income which is taxed and the actual benefit for which the tax is paid. See Harrison v. Schaffner [and cases cited at pages 581, 582], 312 U.S. 579 , 61 S.Ct. 759 , 85 L.Ed. 1055 , in which the Supreme Court stated (p. 580) that the decision in Helvering v. Horst, supra, and in Helvering v. Eubank, 311 U.S. 122 , 61 S.Ct. 149 , 85 L.Ed. 81 , rested on the principle that ‘the power to dispose of income is the equivalent of ownership of it and that the exercise of the power to procure its payment to another, whether to pay a debt or to make a gift, is within the reach of the statute taxing income “derived from any source whatever.” ’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Greer v. United States