Farkas v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * (a) the decisions and admissions show that the interest transferred was an equitable interest in the testamentary trust estate; (b) there was a complete renunciation by the settlor of any benefit or control of the property; (c) the trust was not one of an unreasonably short duration but was for a large portion of settlor’s life expectancy * *”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commissioner v. Hawn · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. John David Hawn and Bette Hawn

2. ““No right to control, or to revoke, the trust ór to receive the income therefrom was retained in the settlor, such as provoked the doctrine announced in Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331 , 60 S.Ct. 554 , 84 L.Ed. 788 , and similar oases. The fact that the thing assigned could revert to the settlor upon the death of the trustee, standing alone, would not, in our opinion, -render the income from the trust taxable to the settlor. We know of no case holding otherwise. “In the absence of the power to command or to enjoy the income or any benefits therefrom left in the settlor, and in the absence of any finding on the part of The Tax Court — or in the absence of any evidence to support a finding — that the transfer was but a sham or a shadow having no substance, whereby taxpayer sought to evade taxes on income that in reality belonged to him, it is essential for us to decide whether the transfer in question was of an equitable interest in a trust estate as defined and adjudged in Blair v. Commissioner, 300 U.S. 5 , 57 S.Ct. 330 , 81 L.Ed. 465 , * * *. “ * * *, but those cases (Helvering v. Clifford and Harrison v. Schaffner, supra) have made it clear that such a disposition of such property must be substantial and not merely colorable, and that when a transfer retains in the transferor the characteristics of ownership, or is only for a day, a month, or a year, it will be regarded as if no disposition had’ been made at all. The test here, therefore, is whether or not the transfer,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thuet v. Riddell

3. ““ * * *^ but those- cases [Helvering v. Clifford and Harrison v. Schaff ner] have made it clear that such a disposition of such property must be substantial”.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thuet v. Riddell