Harrold v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 1982
3 federal appellate ·
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 Poe v. Seaborn · Hunt v. Commissioner · Marshall v. Commissioner · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Cavanagh · Cavanagh 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * It is contra3^y to a line of cases in which we, and other courts, have held that the powers of management conferred upon the husband by community property laws do not render him personally liable for taxes on his wife’s share of the community income. Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101 [ 51 S.Ct. 58 , 75 L.Ed. 239 ] (1930); Paul Cavanagh, 42 B.T.A. 1037 (1940), affirmed on another issue [Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Cava-nagh], 125 F.2d 366 (C.A. 9, 1942); * * * The following explanation given by this tribunal in the Cava-nagh case, pages 1043 and 1044 [of 125 B.T.A.], adequately answers petitioner’s contention: “ ‘The fact that under the California law the husband has a broad power of control does not detract from the wife’s, interest. This power is conferred upon him merely as the agent of the community and does not make him the owner of all the community property and income, nor negative the wife’s present interest there as equal co-owner. * * *.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ * * * We subsequently emphasized in H. B. Perine et al. [ 22 B.T.A. 201 ], supra, that * * *: “The spouses became separate and distinct taxpayers under the statute upon the filing of separate returns of the community income, and the situation is no different than it would be if the taxpayers were other than husband and wife. They being separate taxpayers, we lack authority to require the respondent to credit the proposed deficiency determined against the wife with an overpayment of tax by the husband.””
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.