Carl E. Weller and Emily I. Weller v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, W. Stuart Emmons v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 128 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2015 · most notably Knetsch v. United States (1960), Golsen v. Commissioner (1970)
46 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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. § 23
Relies on Gregory v. Helvering · Deputy v. du Pont · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court Holding Co · Higgins v. Smith · Automobile Club of Mich. v. Commissioner
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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Petitioners contend, however, that although the revenue ruling fails to indicate any limitation on its application, agents of the Treasury have stated to Congress that it does not intend to apply the revenue ruling retroactively to individuals who have previously been issued rulings. We need not determine whether such action if carried out would be an abuse of discretion, for petitioners are not in the same position as those parties who have been issued rulings. They are entitled to the same treatment as all other taxpayers similarly situated, i.e., without rulings, no more and no less. This the Commissioner has afforded them.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * -thg principle laid down in the Gregory case is not limited to corporate reorganizations, but rather applies to the federal taxing statutes generally. The words of these statutes which describe commercial transactions are to be understood to refer to transactions entered upon for commercial purposes and ‘not to include transactions entered upon for no other motive but to escape taxation.’ ” Citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Transport Trading & Terminal Corp., 2 Cir., 1949, 176 F.2d 570, 572 , certio-rari denied 1950, 338 U.S. 955 , 70 S.Ct. 493 , . 94 L.Ed. 589 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In disallowing the interest in these cases, the department relied upon Revenue Ruling 54-94, 1954-1 Cum. Bull. 53, which, of course, was issued after the taxable years in question. The petitioners contend that the Commissioner may not retroactively reverse his prior rulings which allowed similar deductions. The prior rulings had not been issued to the petitioners, for they had never requested any but were individual rulings in other cases. These individual rulings had been shown to petitioners by insurance company salesmen prior to the time of the purchase of the annuity contracts. Recognizing that they may not rely on these rulings directly, petitioners maintain that all taxpayers have the right to be treated equally and fairly and since they undoubtedly would have received similar rulings had they applied for them, they are entitled to their benefits.”
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.