Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 188 F.2d 950 - Commissioner v. Union Pac. R.

Commissioner v. Union Pac. R.’s Empirical Analysis

188 F.2d 950 · 1951

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
September 1976
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently September 1976

6 federal appellate · 1 district ·

140195119601970decided

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. § 113

Relies on United States v. American Trucking Associations · Gregory v. Helvering · United States v. Hutcheson · Markham v. Cabell · United States v. Ludey

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

  1. “(1) General rule. — Proper adjustment in respect of the property shall in all cases be made— ****** * (C) in respect of any period prior to March 1, 1913, for exhaustion, wear and tear, obsolescence, amortization, and depletion, to the extent sustained;”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Theoretically, the ideal way to compute the depreciation of a road’s “ways and structures” would be to appraise the valúe of each item at the beginning and at the end of its fiscal year, and to subtract the difference. That would be a practical impossibility, and no one suggests its propriety. Another way would be to estimate the life of each item and assume that in every year its depreciation was the same — “Straight Line Depreciation.” While this might not be accurate for any single item, differences would be cancelled out, when there were a great many. It would also be possible to group together a number of similar items, to assume that each had the same longevity, and to make a collective proportional deduction for all. “Retirement Accounting” was an alternative: it made no deduction for the depreciation of any item, or group of items, until it, or they, were abandoned; and then it credited to depreciation the original cost, plus additions chargeable to capital, deducting any salvage. Thus, in any year the roád got no credit for actual depreciation during that year upon any but abandoned items; but in its stead it got a cumulative credit made up of all past depreciations of abandoned items. The assumption was that the aggregate of actual annual depreciations upon items not abandoned, which the road did not deduct, would, if the system lasted long enough, match the aggregate of the original costs and capital increments of all abandoned items. If the number of items was gre”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.