Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 29 TC 1095 - Faber v. Commissioner

Faber v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
March 1981
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1981

2 federal appellate ·

301958196019701980decided

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 Feinberg v. Commissioner · Lehman v. Commissioner · Leon Mandel and Carolina Panerai Mandel v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Hart v. Commissioner · Mandel 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The Husband covenants and agrees to pay to the Wife in settlement of her property rights and the obligation of the Husband for her future care, support and maintenance, and for the care of the Wife's child, William, the sum of Fifty-five thousand dollars ($55,000), payable Five thousand dollars ($5,000) annually, beginning the first day of January, 1952, to and including the first day of July, 1962, or for a period of eleven years. * * * Receipt is hereby acknowledged by the Wife of payment by the Husband of Two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) due and payable on January 1, 1952. Payments as above set forth shall be at such place or places as the Wife may, from time to time, designate in writing. 3 "Said payment or payments are to be allocated Two thousand three hundred dollars ($2,300) annually for the Wife, and Two thousand seven hundred dollars ($2,700) annually for the support and care of his Wife's son, William. 4 "In the event that the Wife or her son die before all payments have been made, then the allocated part of the payment, as above set forth, shall cease, and the future payments reduced, and the estate of the one so dying shall have no claim against the Husband for future `payments'.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “§ 22 Gross income * * * (k) Alimony, etc., Income. In the case of a wife who is divorced or legally separated from her husband under a decree of divorce or of separate maintenance, periodic payments (whether or not made at regular intervals) received subsequent to such decree in discharge of, or attributable to property transferred (in trust or otherwise) in discharge of, a legal obligation which, because of the marital or family relationship, is imposed upon or incurred by such husband under such decree or under a written instrument incident to such divorce or separation shall be includible in the gross income of such wife, and such amounts received as are attributable to property so transferred shall not be includible in the gross income of such husband. This subsection shall not apply to that part of any such periodic payment which the terms of the decree or written instrument fix, in terms of an amount of money or a portion of the payment, as a sum which is payable for the support of minor children of such husband * * *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Said payment or payments are to be allocated Two thousand three hundred dollars ($2,300) annually for the Wife, and Two thousand seven hundred dollars ($2,700) annually for the support and care of his Wife's son, William. 4”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.