Hillard v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently September 1991
9 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
Relies on Corn Products Refining Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Massey Motors, Inc. v. United States · Galena Oaks Corporation v. Frank Scofield, Collector of Internal Revenue · Hertz Corp. v. United States · United States v. Bennett
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““are not entitled to the preferential treatment provided in Section 117 for ‘transactions in property which are not the normal source of business income.’ Corn Products * *”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Nor can plaintiff succeed by hitching its wagon to the word “primarily.” Whatever the precise scope of that troublesome term in other contexts, it does not exclude from ordinary income the proceeds of sales by one, like plaintiff, who conducts a dual enterprise involving both rentals and sales of the same type of goods. In that setting, “primarily” invokes a contrast, not between selling and renting, but between selling in the ordinary course of business and selling outside of that normal course. Accordingly, if the entrepreneur holds out his wares either for sale or for rental, the taxation of his business gain from sales does not depend upon a comparison of sales to rentals in the particular year. . . . Regardless of that ratio, the goods are held “primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of trade or business” because they are regularly offered' for sale to customers as part of the normal operation of the enterprise. No case of this kind has allowed capital gains treatment.”
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.