Palmer v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
302 U.S. 63 · 1937
Citation profile
202 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 406 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2013 · most notably Dobson v. Commissioner (1943), Commissioner v. LoBue (1956)
202 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedCommissioner of Internal Revenue v. Palmer (from First Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Helvering v. Rankin · Helvering v. San Joaquin Fruit & Investment Co. · Elmhurst Cemetery Co of Joliet v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Miles v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co.
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 406 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““the bare fact that a transaction, on its face a sale, has resulted in a distribution of some of the corporate assets to stockholders, gives rise to no inference that the distribution is a dividend within the meaning of § 115 [now § 301].””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The mere issue of rights to subscribe and their receipt by stockholder, is not a dividend.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“By sections 111 , 112 and 113 of the Revenue Act of 1928 ( 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 111 , 112 and notes, 113 note), profits derived from the purchase of property, as distinguished from exchanges of property, are ascertained and taxed as of the date of its sale or other disposition by the purchaser. Profit, if any, accrues to him only upon sale or disposition, and the taxable income is the difference between the amount thus realized and its cost, less allowed deductions. It follows that one does not subject himself to income tax by the mere purchase of property, even if at less than its true value, and that taxable gain does not accrue to him before he sells or otherwise disposes of it. Specific provisions establishing this basis for the taxation of gains derived from purchased property were included in the 1916 and each subsequent revenue act and accompanying regulations.”
2 later decisions 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.