Casey v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently February 1987 · most notably Elliotts, Inc. v. Commissioner (1983), Smoot Sand & Gravel Corp. v. Commissioner (1960)
28 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 102 · 26 U.S.C. § 534
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Helvering v. National Grocery Co. · Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America v. Harrington · Orvis v. Higgins · Helvering v. Chicago Stock Yards Co.
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) [As amended by Sec. 103(d), Revenue Act of 1941, c. 412, 55 Stat. 687 ] Imposition of tax. There shall be levied, collected, and paid for each taxable year (in addition to other taxes imposed by this chapter) upon the net income of every corporation (other than a personal holding company as defined in section 501 or a foreign personal holding company as defined in Supplement P) if such corporation, however created or organized, is formed or availed of for the purpose of preventing the imposition of the surtax upon its shareholders or the shareholders of any other corporation, through the medium of permitting earnings or profits to accumulate instead of being divided or distributed, a surtax equal to the sum o e o owing. “27% per centum of the amount of the undistributed section 102 net income not in excess of $100,000, plus “38% per centum of the undistributed section 102 net income in excess of $100,-000.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Evidence determinative of purpose. The fact that the earnings or profits of a corporation are permitted to accumulate beyond the reasonable needs of the business shall be determinative of the purpose to avoid surtax upon shareholders unless the corporation by the clear preponderance of the evidence shall prove to the contrary.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Section 532(a) was a penal statute, designed to defeaf any plan to evade the shareholders’ taxes, and there can be no doubt that it presupposes some deliberate purpose to do so and is not satisfied by proving that the corporation was mistaken in its estimate of its future-“needs.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.