Helvering v. Bankline Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

163 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 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 368 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he phrase ‘economic interest’ is not to be taken as embracing a mere economic advantage derived from production, through a contractual relation to the owner, by one who has no capital investment in the mineral deposit.”

   23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stilwell v. United States · United States v. White

2. “recognition of the fact that the mineral deposits are wasting assets and [the deduction for the depletion] is intended as compensation to the owner for the part used up in production.”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Victory Sand & Concrete, Inc. v. Commissioner · CGG Ams., Inc. v. Comm'r

3. ““It is plain that, apart from its contracts with producers, respondent had no interest in the producing wells or in the wet gas in place. Respondent is a processor. It was not engaged in production. Under its contracts with producers, respondent was entitled to a delivery of the gas produced at the wells, and to extract gasoline therefrom, and was bound to pay to the producers the stipulated amounts. Some of the contracts, reciting that the producer was the owner of the gas produced, provided for its treatment by respondent. Other contracts were couched in terms of purchase. In either case the gas was to be delivered to respondent at the casing-heads or gas traps installed by the producer. Respondent had the right to have the gas delivered, but did not produce it and could not compel its production. * * * As the Board of Tax Appeals said, 33 B.T.A. 910 : ‘it is safe to say, we believe, that this petitioner [respondent] had no enforceable rights whatsoever under its contracts prior to the time the wet gas was actually placed in its pipe line, i. e., after it had passed beyond the casingheads and gas traps supplied by the producer into the pipe line, except the right, perhaps, to demand that the producer deliver whatever was produced through its pipe lines for treatment during the period of contractual relationship.’ “Undoubtedly respondent through its contracts obtained an economic advantage from the production of the gas, but that is not sufficient. The controlling fact is th”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Paragon Jewel Coal Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Shoemake v. United States