Helvering v. Bruun’s Empirical Analysis
309 U.S. 461 · 1940
Citation profile
123 federal appellate · 4 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 294 later decisions (29 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Glenshaw Glass Company (1955), United States v. Williams (2008)
123 federal appellate · 4 district · 26 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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
reviewedHelvering v. Bruun (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Eisner v. Macomber · Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner · United States v. Kirby Lumber Co. · United States v. Phellis
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 294 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““These expressions, however, were used to clarify the distinction between an ordinary dividend and a stock dividend. They were meant to show that in the case of a stock' dividend, the stockholder’s interest in the corporate assets after receipt of the dividend was the same as, and inseverable from that which he owned before the dividend was declared. We think they are not controlling here.” 309 U.S. at 469 , 60 S.Ct. at 634 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Here, as a result of a business transaction, the respondent received back his land with a new building on it, which added an ascertainable amount to its value. It is not necessary to recognition of taxable gain that he should be able to sever the improvement begetting the gain from his original capital. If that were necessary,- no income could arise from the exchange of property; whereas such gain has always been recognized as realized taxable gain.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... `Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets .... "... [It is] not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being `derived,' that is received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal; that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description.”
1 later decision 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.