Libson Shops, Inc. v. Koehler’s Empirical Analysis
229 F.2d 220 · 1956
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2009
11 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 23
Relies on New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering · Deputy v. du Pont · Cannon Mfg Co v. Cudahy Packing Co · Interstate Transit Lines v. Commissioner · Burnet v. Clark
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the case before us, we do not have “essentially a continuing enterprise.” We are concerned with the merger of seventeen corporations, each of them operating an individual enterprise. Sixteen of the corporations operated sixteen individual stores in sixteen different places, four of them in Illinois and the remainder in Missouri. The seventeenth corporation provided supervisory and managerial services for the other sixteen. The appellant is here attempting to pool seventeen separate enterprises and level the ups and downs of their economic fortunes. We can see no distinction (except corporation as opposed to individual) between the situation confronting us in this case and that in which seventeen individuals, each owning and operating a separate and distinct business, trying to pool their resources and liabilities into one ownership and thereby attempting to take credit for the loss carryovers of three of the individuals whose enterprises had not returned a profit in the years prior to the combined ownership. The rule contended for by appellant would obviously give unfair advantage to corporations over individuals.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Its words are plain and free from ambiguity. Taken according to their natural import they mean that the taxpayer who sustained the loss is the one to whom the deduction shall be allowed. Had there been a purpose to depart from the general policy in that regard, and to make the right to the deduction transferable or available to others than the taxpayer who sustained the loss, it is but reasonable to believe that purpose would have been clearly expressed. And, as the section contains nothing which even approaches such an expression, it must be taken as not intended to make such a departure.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) Amount o» Carry-Back and Cabby-ovbb.— * * ***** (2) Net operating loss cabby-ovbb.— ******* (C) Loss for taxable year beginning after December 31, 1947, and before January 1, 1950. — If for any taxable year beginning after December 81, 1947, and before January 1, 1950, the taxpayer has a net operating loss, such net operating loss shall be a net operating loss carry-over for each of the three succeeding taxable years, * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.