Taylor v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently January 2009 · most notably Feistman v. Commissioner (1974), Miller v. Commissioner (1944)
1 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
Relies on Lynch v. United States · Dodge v. Board of Education · Dismuke v. United States · Retirement Board v. McGovern · Pennie v. Res
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““So considered we find nothing in the authorities dealing with this subject to convince us that petitioners could be de prived of the benefits to which by this legislation their own contributions entitle them.” (p. 272.) “While the matter is certainly not free from doubt, we are inclined to the view, particularly in the light of the Dismuke Case, that at least to the extent that it consists of contributions by the employee out of his basic salary, the payment provided by the Retirement Act is a true annuity comparable to one which might be subscribed for by any employer for the benefit of an employee and that it follows that if under such circumstances an employee on a cash basis is chargeable with the contribution to the cost of such an annuity made out of his salary, these petitioners were required to include the amount of the disputed withholding in their taxable income.” (p. 274.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““As aptly said by the tax court in its opinion (in Taylor v. Commissioner, supra) : ‘These aspects of the retirement plan seem to us to demonstrate that there have been purchased by the employee substantial rights, of a value which can in no event fall materially below the amount of his own contribution, which presently belong to him, and which are unequivocally provided for his ultimate benefit under whatever contingency and in whatever circumstance the occasion for that benefit should arise. They are in that respect comparable to and for our purposes indistinguishable from, an annuity contract, of which the employer constitutes itself the issuer, setting aside reserves for that purpose and making investments thereof comparable to those which would be employed by companies engaged in that business.” (p. 289.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Every employee coming within the provisions of this act shall be deemed to consent and agree to the deductions from salary, pay, or compensation as provided herein, and payment less such deductions shall be a full and complete discharge and acquittance of all claims and demands whatsoever for all regular services rendered by such employee during the period covered by such payment, except the right to the benefits to which, he shall be entitled under the provisions of this act. . . .” (46 U. S. Stats, at L. 476.)”
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.