May Broadcasting Co. v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate ·

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

1. “it is clear from the statutory provisions and legislative history that Congress established a procedure for the proper determination of the entire tax, and that such determination of the whole tax involves a single procedure which began with the timely filing of the application under § 722 and included the rejection thereof by the Commissioner and the petition to the Tax Court. * * * * * * * We think all pertinent issues bearing upon the tax liability under Chapter 2 Subchapter E could be raised by the taxpayer. However, this is a two-way street. Had a deficiency been found, such deficiency could have been assessed and collected. The original application suspended the Statute of Limitations and thereafter, the entire excess profits tax liability was open for determination. (Emphasis added.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Commissioner · The Overland Corporation (Formerly Willys-Overland Motors, Inc.) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. The Overland Corporation (Formerly Willys-Overland Motors, Inc.)

2. “Thus, under a proper interpretation of § 722 and § 732(a), the application to the Commissioner for relief and the petition to the Tax Court for redetermination of the tax are component parts of the procedure established by Congress for obtaining a redetermination of the tax in a single proceeding and necessarily involve a resolution of all standard issues and all abnormality issues specifically raised. No regulation of the Commissioner is pertinent to this case. Entitlement to refund based on the standard issue of equity invested capital has been established here by stipulation. Hence, § 322(d) authorizes the refund of 1942 excess profits taxes paid by taxpayer within two years prior to November 30, 1944. Moreover, we conclude on the basis of the foregoing reasoning and the authority of the Fendrich (7 Cir., 242 F.2d 803 ) and Poe (4 Cir., 245 F.2d 8 ) decisions that the Tax Court erred in holding that taxpayer's claim was barred by § 322(b), for the reason that that section is inapplicable generally to Tax Court proceedings and is inapplicable in this case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Overland Corporation (Formerly Willys-Overland Motors, Inc.) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. The Overland Corporation (Formerly Willys-Overland Motors, Inc.)

3. “[a] valid basis exists for a Congressional desire to suspend the statute of limitations upon the filing of a § 722 application. The excess profits law presents many complex problems. The record here shows that the taxpayer’s application * * * was not acted upon until more than 9 years after its filing * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Commissioner