Koshland v. Helvering’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

244 federal appellate · 41 district · 46 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 536 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Where the act uses ambiguous terms, or is of doubtful construction, a clarifying regulation or one indicating the method of its application to specific cases not only is permissible but is to be given great weight by the courts. And the same principle governs where the statute merely expresses a general rule and invests the Secretary of the Treasury with authority to promulgate regulations appropriate to its enforcement. But where, as in this case, the provisions of the act are unambiguous, and its directions specific, there is no power to amend it by regulation. Congress having clearly and specifically declared that in taxing income arising from capital gain the cost of the asset disposed of shall be the measure of the income, the Secretary of the Treasury is without power by regulatory amendment to add a provision that income derived from the capital asset shall be used to reduce cost.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commissioner v. Textile Mills Securities Corp. · Greenberg Brothers Partnership 4, a.k.a. Breathless Associates, Richard M. Greenberg, Tax Matters Partner v. Commissioner

2. ““Although Eisner v. Macomber [ 252 U.S. 189 , 40 S.Ct. 189 , 64 L.Ed. 521 , 9 A.L.R. 1570 ] affected only the taxation of dividends declared in the same stock as that presently held by the taxpayer, the Treasury gave the decision a broader interpretation which Congress followed in the act of 1921. Soon after the passage of that act, this court pointed out the distinction between a stock dividend which worked no change in the corporate entity, the same interest in the same corporation being represented after the distribution by more shares of precisely the same character, and such a dividend where there had either been changes of corporate identity or a change in the nature of the shares issued as dividends whereby the proportional interest of the stockholder after the distribution was essentially different from his former interest. Nevertheless the successive statutes and Treasury regulations respecting taxation of stock dividends remained unaltered.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pfeiffer v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Messer v. Commissioner

3. “does not constitute the receipt of income by the stockholder.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Strassburger v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Owensboro Wagon Co. v. Commissioner