Ball v. Victor Adding Machine Co.’s Empirical Analysis
236 F.2d 170 · 1956
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently October 1994
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
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. § 165 · 26 U.S.C. § 401 (Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962)
Relies on Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Sprage v. Ticonic Nat Bank · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · In Re Peterson · William Shields v. Robert R Barrow
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“And the idea that a Pension Trust expressly approved, as was this one, by the Internal Revenue Service as a plan qualified under Section 165, 1939 Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 165 ; 1954 Code, § 401, 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 401 , 402, is a mere gratuity or charitable enterprise beyond even the barest scrutiny by its sole beneficiaries (the employees) is completely out of keeping with the philosophy and purpose of such plans as the means of paying additional compensation to the covered employees in a way to afford substantial and immediate tax advantages to the Employer and substantial tax and monetary benefits to the employees. See, Law of Federal Income Taxation, Mertens, 1942, Vol. 4, § 25.69, page 440, §§ 25.70 to 25.76, incl., and full historical background, 1954 Pocket Supplement, §§ 25.70 to 25.75. A pension trust is no will of the wisp for “ * * * within the meaning of section 165(a) [it] is a plan established and maintained by an .employer primarily to provide systematically for the payment of definitely determinable benefits to his employees over a period of years, usually for life, after retirement * * Federal Tax Regulations, § 39.165-1 (a)(2). And see, §§ 39.165-1(a)(3), 39.165-4(e). So much so is it for the employees that the statute, Sec. 165(a), requires that the Pension Trust be “for the exclusive benefit of [the] employees” with distribution of corpus and income of such trust limited to “such employees or their beneficiaries” with an absolute prohibition against use or diversi”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“And the idea that a Pension Trust expressly approved, as was this one, by the Internal Revenue Service as a plan qualified under Section 165, 1939 Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 165 ; 1954 Code, § 401, 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 401 , 402, is a mere gratuity or charitable enterprise beyond even the barest scrutiny by its sole beneficiaries (the employees) is completely out of keeping with the philosophy and purpose of such plans as the means of paying additional compensation to the covered employees in a way to afford substantial and immediate tax advantages to the Employer and substantial tax and monetary benefits to the employees.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““When the Plan, under its terms, is to be effectually administered by a Committee of employees designated and appointed alone by the Employer and subject to its absolute removal and replacement, it does no violence to the Plan and its purpose to require that the Employer having this wide power over such appointees make them available as parties over whom the Court can then exercise traditional power to adjudicate the merits.””
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.