Simon J. Murphy Company and Social Research Foundation, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s Empirical Analysis
231 F.2d 639 · 1956
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently September 1990 · most notably Acker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1958), Foster v. Comm'r (1983)
28 federal appellate · 1 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. § 122 · 26 U.S.C. § 164 · 26 U.S.C. § 23 · 26 U.S.C. § 41
Relies on Gregory v. Helvering · Helvering v. Clifford · Helvering v. Horst · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court Holding Co · Commissioner v. Tower
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““circumstances involving an improper manipulation of financial accounts, an improper juggling of the accounts between the related organizations, an improper ‘milking’ of one business for the benefit of the other, or some similar abuse of proper financial accounting, all made possible by the control of the two businesses by the same interests. When the Commissioner determined that a transaction between the controlled parties was not ‘at arm’s length,’ an allocation would be justified in order to reflect the true net income which would have resulted if one uncontrolled taxpayer had dealt at arm’s length with another uncontrolled taxpayer. Substance has been substituted for form.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(1) The term ‘organization’ includes any organization of any kind, whether it be a sole proprietorship, a partnership, a trust, an estate, or a corporation (as each is defined or understood in the Internal Revenue Code or the regulations in this part), irrespective of the place where organized, where operated or where its trade or business is conducted, and regardless of whether domestic or foreign, whether exempt, whether affiliated, or whether a party to a consolidated return. “(2) The terms ‘trade’ or ‘business’ include any trade or business activity of any kind, regardless of w'hether or wdiere organized, whether owned individually or otherwise, and regardless of the place where carried on. “(3) The term ‘controlled’ includes any kind of control, direct or indirect, whether legally enforceable, and however exercisable or exercised. It is the reality of the control which is decisive, not its form or the mode of its exercise. A presumption of control arises if income or deductions have been arbitrarily shifted. “(4) The term ‘controlled taxpayer’ means any one of two or more organizations, trades, or businesses owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the same interests. “(5) The terms ‘group’ and ‘group of controlled taxpayers’ mean the organizations, trades, or businesses owned or controlled by the same interests. “(6) The term ‘true net income’ means, in the case of a controlled taxpayer, the net income (or, as the case may be, any item or element affecting net inc”
2 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.