Lewellyn v. Electric Reduction Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

177 federal appellate · 27 district · 5 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 366 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““§ 23. Deductions from Gross Income “In computing net income there shall be allowed as deductions: * * * * * “(e) Losses by Individuals. In the case of an individual, losses sustained during the taxable year and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise— * * * * * “(2) if incurred in any transaction entered into for profit, though not connected with the trade or business; ^ * “(k) Bad Debts. Debts ascertained to be worthless and charged off within the taxable year (or, in the discretion of the Commissioner, a reasonable addition to a reserve for bad debts) ; and when satisfied that a debt is recoverable only in part, the Commissioner may allow such debt, in an amount not in excess of the part charged off within the taxable year, as a deduction.””

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lucas v. American Code Co. · Collin County Nat. Bank v. Commissioner

2. “The buyer’s rights were upon a contract for the delivery of merchandise and were not a “debt” in either a technical or a colloquial sense. We conclude that if respondent’s contract rights became worthless in 1918 he was not required to deduct his loss as a worthless debt * * * but was entitled to deduct it * * * as a loss sustained in that year.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Meyer v. Commissioner · Fred G. Meyer and Bessie Meyer, Cross-Appellants v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Cross-Appellee

3. ““The statute was intended to apply, not only to losses resulting from the physical destruction of articles of value, but to those occurring in the operations of trade and business, where the business man has ventured on a course of action in the reasonable expectation that the promised conduct of another will come to pass. Not only the future success of the business, but its present solvency, depends on the probable accuracy of his prophecy. Only when events prove the prophecy to have been false can it be said that he has suffered. His case is not like that of a man who fails to learn of the theft of his bonds or the burning of his house until a year after the occurrence, but rather resembles the position of a merchant who buys in one year, for sale in the next, merchandise which shifting fashion renders unsalable in the latter. It may well be that he whose house has been burned has sustained a loss, whether he knows it or not, and may recover a tax paid in ignorance of that material fact. But we cannot say that the merchant whose action has been based, not merely on ignorance of a fact, but on faith in a prophecy — even though the prophecy is made without full knowledge of the facts — can claim to have sustained a loss before the future fails to justify his hopes.” Lewellyn v. Electric Reduction Co., 275 U. S. 243 , 48 S. Ct. 63 , 72 L. Ed. -.”

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