Alcoma Ass'n v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
239 F.2d 365 · 1956
Citation profile
13 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently October 1996 · most notably Rosenthal v. Commissioner (1969), Rosenthal v. Commissioner (1967)
13 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. § 113 · 26 U.S.C. § 23
Relies on Graves v. People of State of New York O'Keefe · Helvering v. Owens · Helvering v. William Flaccus Oak Leather Co. · United States v. Koshland
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Finally the Commissioner objects that the taxpayer’s formula in effect allows him to take losses against anticipated profits from the appreciation of his property, for which he has as yet paid no taxes. This argument is deceptive. The only real amount is the out-of-pocket loss suffered by the taxpayer; this loss might indeed be larger than otherwise because of the (as yet untaxed) appreciation in the value and cost of the property, but it is nevertheless a real loss. This loss can in any event be deducted only to the extent of the original investment reduced by the previously allowed depreciation. The appreciation can still be taxed when and if actually realized; if the property should later depreciate before it is sold it is the taxpayer who is ultimately injured by having suffered his loss at the time when prices and presumably replacement costs were high —he should not be penalized taxwise because he “realized” his “profits” through involuntary conversion at a time when prices happen to be high. Id. 239 F.2d at 370 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * this question has not been left entirely open. The Supreme Court's decision in Helvering v. Owens * * has explicitly determined that allowable casualty loss is to be the actual decrease in the market value of the property, measured by the difference in market values immediately before and immediately after the casualty, but limited to the total adjusted basis of the property. Id. at 367.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) Amount deductible — (1) General rule. In the case of any casualty loss whether or not incurred in a trade or business or in any transaction entered into for profit, the amount of loss to be taken into account for purposes of section 165(a) shall be the lesser of either — "(i) The amount which is equal to the fair market value of the property immediately before the casualty reduced by the fair market value of the property immediately after the casualty; or "(ii) The amount of the adjusted basis prescribed in § 1.1011-1 for determining the loss from the sale or other disposition of the property involved. However, if the property used in a trade or business or held for the production of income is totally destroyed by casualty, and if the fair market value of such property immediately before the casualty is less than the adjusted basis of such property, the amount of the adjusted basis of such property shall be treated as the amount of the loss for purposes of section 165(a).”
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.