Sun Properties, Inc. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

48 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. ““[I]ts [the district court’s] rationale is that this was not a customary or usual sort of sale nor the type which would have taken place between parties at arm’s length; the decisive consideration motivating the transaction was the minimizing of taxes; and, in fact, that was the only business purpose of the transaction. Therefore, the [district] court reasoned, it was not a sale at all * * * [ 220 F.2d at 173 ] ****** “This rationale is perilously plausible. It is in effect saying to the taxpayer, ‘You did this under suspicious circumstances; therefore, you did not do it at all, and you are not entitled to any tax advantages.’ For all of the circumstances relied upon by the Government are consistent both logically and empirically, we think, with the opposite conclusion that the transaction was a sale in fact as well as in form; these are good reasons to scrutinize the transaction carefully, but they are not rational proof that it was something other than what it purported to be. [ 220 F.2d at 173-174 .] ****** “So, having scrutinized the transaction closely, as we were bound to do, we find not a particle of proof that it was in fact a contribution to capital nor that it was intended as such * * * ” ( 220 F.2d at 175 .)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Goldstein v. Commissioner · Sarkes Tarzian, Inc. v. United States

2. “The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 228 F. Supp. 881 - Robert A. Welch Foundation v. United States · Frank Cowden, Sr., and Wife Gladys Cowden, Petitioner-Respondent v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-Petitioner, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-Petitioner v. Frank Cowden, Sr., and Wife Gladys Cowden, Petitioner-Respondent

3. “[A] transaction must not be disregarded simply because it was not at arm's length.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hunt & Sons, Inc. v. Comm'r · Bowen v. Commissioner