Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2 BTA 517 - Mabel Elevator Co. v. Commissioner

Mabel Elevator Co. v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

1925

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
September 2020
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2020 · most notably Florsheim Bros. Drygoods Co. v. United States (1930), Germantown Trust Co. v. Commissioner (1940)

3 federal appellate · 3 district ·

19019251930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

Relies on National Refining Co. 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “for the purpose of assuring the taxpayer, who has made an honest return, that after such period his tax liability will not be reopened; otherwise the business of the country would always have before it the threat of additional taxes against the income of years long past.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The return filed purported to be made In accordance with the law; it purported to and did include the income of the taxpayer for the period in question. In the absence of any evidence or claim that such return was false or fraudulent with intent to evade tax, it became the duty of the Commissioner to determine, within the time prescribed by law, whether or not such return was erroneous in any respect.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The deficiency letter from which this appeal was taken was mailed to the taxpayer more than five years after the return was filed on April 21, 1919, and the limitation of time within which taxes must be assessed had expired.”
    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.