Cc&f Western Operations Limited Partnership Cc&f Investors Inc Tax Matters Partner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s Empirical Analysis
273 F.3d 402 · 2001
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Colony, Inc. v. Commissioner · Rhone-Poulenc Surfactants & Specialties, L.P. v. Commissioner · State Police Ass'n v. Commissioner · George Edward Quick's Trust, U/a 2333-41 Mercantile Trust Company National Association, Trustee v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, George Edward Quick's Trust, U/a 2333-41 Mercantile Trust Company National Association, Trustee, Transferee v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Quick Trust 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The result may seem surprising because section 275 did not speak of gross receipts at all but of gross income, and taxpayer Colony had under-reported gross income by more than 25 percent by overstating the basis. Gross income on land sales is normally computed as net gain after subtracting the basis. 26 U.S.C. §§ 61 (a)(3), 1001(a); 26 C.F.R. § 1.61-6 (2001). However, Justice Harlan read section 275 in light of legislative reports and debates giving examples of cases where an income receipt was entirely omitted from the return. Although these could have been deemed merely examples, Colony read them as reflecting the limits of section 275.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We think that in enacting § 275(c) [predecessor to section 6501(e)(1)(A)] Congress manifested no broader purpose than to give the Commissioner an additional two years [now, three years] to investigate tax returns in cases where, because of a taxpayer’s omission to report some taxable item, the Commissioner is at a special disadvantage in detecting errors. In such instances the return on its face provides no clue to the existence of the omitted item. On the other hand, when, as here, the understatement of a tax arises from an error in reporting an item disclosed on the face of the return the Commissioner is at no such disadvantage.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“did not involve the failure to include attributed income; rather, all receipts were disclosed and the taxpayer’s only fault was an overstatement of basis,”
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.