Smith v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
35 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently April 1980 · most notably United States v. Ada Belle Winthrop, Individually and as Under the Will of Guy L. Winthrop, Deceased (1969), Biedenharn Realty Co. v. United States (1976)
35 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 117
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Helvering v. National Grocery Co. · Corn Products Refining Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Scottish American Inv Co · Galena Oaks Corporation v. Frank Scofield, Collector of Internal Revenue
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[[Image here]] In connection with the sale of lots from the subdivisions, all sales were handled by petitioner personally in her home. Petitioner did not demonstrate any lots to prospective purchasers. She arranged all details in connection with the conveyances and when installment sales were made, held the mortgage notes and made installment collections. Petitioner also managed and supervised all development activities. Petitioner did not employ any real estate agent or other salesman to handle the sale of the lots. No advertising was ever done and there was no real estate listing for petitioner in the telephone directory. All acts of sale in connection with these lots were completed in the office of the same attorney. There was a strong demand for homesites in the vicinity of Houma, Louisiana, during the years here involved. Petitioner’s land- was ideally situated for this purpose and was readily salable. The lots sold by petitioner during the years 1951, 1952, and 1953 were held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of petitioner’s trade or business. OPINION. Eespondent contends that the lots sold by petitioner in the years 1951, 1952, and 1953 were held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of her trade or business, and that the gam realized is ordinary income. Sec. 117 (a) and (j), I. E. C. 1939. Petitioner contends that the sales were in liquidation of capital assets within the meaning of section 117 (a), and that capital gain resulted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Essential as they are in the adjudication of cases, we must take guard lest we be so carried away by the proliferation of tests that we forget that the statute excludes from capital assets `property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business.' 26 U.S.C.A. § 1221. * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * There was no effort made to sell * * *. There was no campaign. There was no solicitation or sales drive. There was no advertising. * * * ””
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.