Gitlitz v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
182 F.3d 1143 · 1999
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2016 · most notably David Gitlitzs v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (2001), United States v. Bradstreet (2000)
16 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 61 (Payment-in-Kind Tax Treatment Act of 1983)
Relies on Helvering v. New York Trust Co. · United Ates v. Skelly Oil Company · Estate Leavitt III III v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Anderson v. Commissioner · Schelble 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“as if such item were realized directly from the source from which realized by the corporation”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he language in section 108(b)(4)(A) clearly indicates that tax attributes are reduced on the first day of the tax year following the year of the discharge of indebtedness. The statutory language is straight forward. Discharge of indebtedness income, considered income •under section 61(a)(12), is excluded from gross income pursuant to section 108(a)(1)(B) if, as in this case, the S corporation is insolvent. This solvency determination, is made at the corporate level rather than the individual shareholder level pursuant to section 108(d)(7)(A). Discharge of indebtedness income excluded from gross income under section 108(a)(1)(B) then passes through to the S corporation’s shareholders pursuant to section 1366(a)(1)(A). Upon passing through to the S corporation’s shareholders, the discharge of indebtedness income causes an upward adjustment in the basis of the shareholder’ S corporation stock pursuant to section 1367(a)(1)(A), thus allowing deductions for losses previously suspended because the corporation’s stock lacked adequate basis. Finally, the tax attribute reduction required by section 108(b) takes place on the first day of the tax year following the year of the discharge of indebtedness, as mandated by section 108(b)(4)(A).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The outcome of this case is ultimately determined by the timing of the pass-through. If the attribute reduction procedures precede the pass-through, the corporation’s excluded discharge of indebtedness income is absorbed before it can pass through to shareholders and compel basis adjustments. Potential windfalls are thus avoided. If, on the other hand, attribute reduction takes place after the pass-through, the taxpayers’ theory must prevail.”
2 later decisions 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.