Faroll v. Jarecki’s Empirical Analysis
231 F.2d 281 · 1956
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently November 1998 · most notably Factor v. Commissioner (1960), In the Matter of Roger Roy Larson and Joan Rosemary Larsons
20 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.
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 117 · 26 U.S.C. § 1233 · 7 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on Corn Products Refining Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Helvering v. Winmill · Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Olsen U S · Board of Trade v. Christie Grain & Stock Co. · Chandler v. United States
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““From the stipulated activities and description of the Board of Trade’s operations, we would have to ignore the realities of the market place, to hold otherwise than that Faroll's losses resulted from declines and advances in prices in the market, Chicago Board of Trade, where he daily bought and sold commodity futures on his own behalf. To say ail businesses contain an element of speculation is not an answer here. Life itself is a speculation. We also think the inter-member transactions in commodity futures operating in the ‘pit’ are not, on these facts, sales to customers within the meaning of § 117(a) (1). Even capital assets, uncontroverted in such classification, may be sold to a customer or customers without losing preferential treatment under the Code. Indeed, frequently, that is the tax-wise juncture of realization to the holder of such assets. * * •>:• * * “It is evident, and undisputed, that Faroll’s transactions were not in the commodity itself. This .significant aspect is also brought into further sharp relief by Hoffman’s statement: ‘Future contracts should * * * be thought of as rights to the commodity rather than the commodity itself and in dealing in futures one is dealing not in the actual commodity but in claims on or contracts for the commodity.’ Hoffman, Future Trading 111 (1932). We are aware that Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for the majority in Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Christie Grain & Stock Co., 1905, 198 U.S. 236, 250 , 25 S.Ct. 637, 639”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“-- stock in trade of the taxpayer or other property of a kind which would properly be included in the inventory of the taxpayer if on hand at the close of the taxable year, or property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business; At the outset, we note petitioners' stipulation that Mr. MacAdam was a”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“property held by the taxpayer (whether or not connected with his trade or business)”
3 later decisions 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.