Real Estate - Land Title & Trust Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

91 federal appellate · 32 district · 14 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 315 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * Whether petitioner has satisfied those requirements we do not decide for its claim for refund was based exclusively and solely on the ground that it was entitled to an allowance for obsolescence. Hence, in ab- ’ sence of a waiver by the government * * * or a proper amendment, petitioner is precluded in this suit from resting its claim on another ground.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. French v. Smyth · 111 F. Supp. 251 - Mayer v. United States

2. ““Now it is true that in the popular sense a thing which is obsolete is one which is no longer used, a meaning which gives color to petitioner’s claim for deduction since there is no question that the title plant here involved is no longer utilized to any degree whatsoever. But the term ‘allowance for obsolescence’, as used in the Act and in the Treasury Regulations, has a narrower or more technical meaning than that derived from the common, dictio'nary definition of obsolete. The Treasury Regulations state the circumstances under which an allowance for obsolescence of physical property may be allowed, viz., where such property is ‘being affected by economic conditions that will result in its being abandoned at a future date prior to the end of its normal useful life, so that depreciation deductions alone are insufficient to return the cost (or other basis) at the end of its economic term of usefulness.’ * * * in general, obsolescence under the Act connotes functional depreciation, as it does in accounting and engineering terminology. More than non-use or disuse is necessary to establish it. * * * not every decision of management to abandon facilities or to discontinue their use gives rise to a claim for obsolescence. For obsolescence under the Act requires that the operative cause of the present or growing uselessness arise from external forces which make it desirable or imperative that the property be replaced. * * * ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Becker v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

3. ““ * * * to consider whether or not plaintiff was entitled to a refund under the section (23f) of the Revenue Act allowing a deduction for ‘Losses sustained during the taxable year and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise,’ since the taxpayer had based its claim for refund on the ground (Sec. 23k) that certain of its assets had become obsolete. It held that it was entitled to the deduction only if it was entitled to it under the section (23k) allowing a deduction for obsolescence, even though it appears that the facts alleged in support of this ground were sufficient to per mit the deduction under the section (23f) providing for ‘losses sustained.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Washington Trust Bank v. United States