United States v. Eidson’s Empirical Analysis
310 F.2d 111 · 1962
Citation profile
29 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently February 1991 · most notably Pridemark, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1965), Thompson v. Commissioner (1963)
29 federal appellate ·
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.
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 1221 · 26 U.S.C. § 22
Relies on Burnet v. Harmel · Corn Products Refining Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. P G Lake · Hort v. Commissioner · Commissioner v. Gillette Motor Transport, Inc.
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is, of course, not disputed Rere by the taxpayers that whatever net amount their contract would yield to them during the remaining life of the contract would -be -taxable to them as ordinary income. Therefore, if it be de'emed, as we think it must, that -the sum of $170,000, which -they received for a transfer or assignment of their rights under -the contract, represented their agreed amount as to the value of the contract to them, then the $170,000, in a very true sense, represented the present cash value of wh-at would have otherwise been to them income received during the balance of the life of the contract. The fact that, as pointed out by the taxpayers, this income would not be received by the taxpayer unless they -performed the -services which the contract required of them, that is, actively managed the affairs of the insurance company in a manner that would .produce a profit after -all of the necessary expenditures, does not, it seems clear, affect the nature of this payment. It affects only the amount. That is, the fact that the taxpayers would have to spend their time and energies in performing services for which -the compensation would -be received merely affects the -price at which they would be willing to .assign or transfer -the contract.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it is evident that not everything which can be called property in the ordinary sense and which is outside the statutory exclusions qualifies as a capital asset. This Court has long held that the term”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Except to the extent that the Weaver Mortgage Company case can be sustained on the basis that there was there a sale of a property right equivalent to a sale of a business and good will, which really seems to be the ratio decidendi, that case would appear to be in conflict with the earlier Supreme Court decisions defining capital assets. We, therefore, distinguish it on the stated ground that there was a sale of a business including good will, a circumstance not present here.” p. 116.”
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.