Stephen F. Heringer, Mabel H. Heringer, John F. Heringer, and Alta G. Heringer v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 2000 · most notably Estate Lang Lang v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Shepherd v. Commissioner (2000)
7 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
Relies on Dobson v. Commissioner · Sanford's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · United States v. Pelzer · Commissioner v. Wemyss · Smith v. Shaughnessy
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(h) The following are examples of transactions resulting in taxable gifts and in each case it is assumed that the transfers were not made for an adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth: (1) A transfer of property by a corporation to B is a gift to B from the stockholders of the corporation. If B himself is a stockholder, the transfer is a gift to him from the other stockholders but only to the extent it exceeds B’s own interest in such amount as a shareholder. A transfer of property by B t<j a corporation generally represents gifts by B to the other individual shareholders of the corporation to the extent of their proportionate interests in the corporation. * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Giving the language of the statute its ordinary meaning petitioners’ intention was to donate not more than 60% of the transferred property. Where, as here, a direct consequence of their action was to proportionately increase the value of petitioners’ holdings, reason and justice require a finding that petitioners parted with no more. In so applying the statute we recognize the importance of realistic considerations, Helvering v. Hutch-ings, supra. [Id. at 153]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Shareholders of the corporation could possess or enjoy the land or income derived therefrom only upon declaration of dividends, an act which required the joint action of members of the competent corporate body and which no single shareholder could perform.” [Heringer v. Commissioner, 235 F.2d at 152 .][ 13 ]”
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.