United States v. Ludey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

356 federal appellate · 32 district · 22 state decisions

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 811 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the sum which should be set aside for the taxable year, in order that, at the end of the useful life of the plant in the business, the aggregate of the sums set aside will (with the salvage value) suffice to provide an amount equal to the original cost.”

   23 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Old Colony Trust Co. v. White · Burlington Northern Inc. v. United States

2. ““The depletion charge permitted as a deduction from the gross income in determining ihe taxable income of mines for any year represents the reduction in the mineral contents of the reserves from which tne product is taken. The reserves are recognized as wasting assets. The depletion effected by operation is likened to the using up of raw material in making the product of a manufacturing establishment. As'the cost of the raw material must be deducted from the gross income before the net income can be determined, so the estimated cost of the part of the reserve used up is allowed. * * * The proviso limiting the amount of the deduction for depletion to the amount of the capital invested shows that the deduction is to be regarded as a return of capital, not as a special bonus for enterprise and willingness to assume risks.””

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Helvering v. Falk · Champlin v. Commissioner

3. ““The aggregate for depreciation and depletion claimed by Ludey in the income tax returns for the years 1913, 1914, 1915, and 1916, and allowed, was only $5,156. He insists that more cannot be deducted from the original cost in making the return for 1917. The contention is unsound. The amount of the gain on the sale is not dependent on the amount claimed in earlier years. If in any year he has failed to claim, or has been denied, the amount to which he was entitled, rectification of the error must be sought through a review of the action of the bureau for that year. He cannot choose the year in which he will take a reduction. On the other hand, we cannot accept the government’s contention that the full amount of depreciation and depletion sustained, whether allowable by law as a deduction from gross income in past years or not, must be deducted from cost in ascertaining gain or loss. Congress doubtless intended that the deduction to be made from the original cost should be the aggregate amount which the taxpayer was entitled to deduct in the several years.” [Italics added.]”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hardwick Realty Co. v. Commissioner · Commissioner v. Saltonstall