United States v. Curd’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 federal appellate ·

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.

1. “If in the case of any taxpayer, the Commissioner determines that there is a deficiency in respect of the tax imposed by this chapter, the Commissioner is authorized to send notice of such deficiency to the taxpayer by registered mail. Within ninety days after such notice is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the ninetieth day), the taxpayer may file a petition with The Tax Court of the United States for a redetermination of the deficiency. No assessment of a deficiency in respect of the tax imposed by this chapter and no distraint or proceeding in court for its collection shall be made, begun, or prosecuted until such notice has been mailed to the taxpayer, nor until the expiration of such ninety-day period, nor, if a petition has been filed with the Tax Court, until the decision of the Tax Court has become final. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3653(a) the making of such assessment or the beginning of such proceeding or distraint during the time such prohibition is in force may be enjoined by a proceeding in the proper court. In the case of a joint return filed by husband and wife such notice of deficiency may be a single joint notice, except that if the Commissioner has been notified by either spouse that separate residences have been established, then, in lieu of the single joint notice, duplicate originals of the joint notice must be sent by registered mail to each spouse at his last known address.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Enochs v. Green

2. ““ * * * But there was nothing arbitrary and capricious in the tack which the Government took. A full and adequate opportunity is available to test the soundness of both. To grant this Taxpayer who demonstrates no appealing or necessitous circumstances the opportunity of contesting ultimate liability for taxes without following either of the traditional routes through the Tax Court or payment and suit to recover back, would not only undermine the judicial approach which acknowledges the inexorable necessities of the tax collecting process, Snyder v. Marks, 109 U.S. 189 , 3 S.Ct. 157 , 27 L.Ed. 901 , but would ultimately discriminate unfairly against countless other taxpayers and would lead to more, not less, hardship and injustices.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 187 F. Supp. 826 - Lipsig v. United States

3. ““But without in any way intimating anything which would have a bearing on the ultimate decision on the merits of this controversy, this 1952 assessment was not a ‘deficiency’ within Section 272(a), 273 (a, b). Deficiency, as it is used in the statute, Section 271, 1939 Code, 26 U.S.C. § 271 , relates to the assertion of a claim for an additional tax as a part of the mechanism by which the Board of Tax Appeals, now the Tax Court, acquires jurisdiction, and thus affords taxpayers an alternative remedy to payment and suit for refund. (Citing cases).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Blansett v. United States