Helvering v. William Flaccus Oak Leather Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

121 federal appellate · 7 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 252 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Generally speaking, the language in the Revenue Act, just as in any statute, is to be given its ordinary meaning, and the words “sale” and “exchange” are not to be read any differently. Compare Helvering v. Hammel, 311 U.S. 504 ; Fairbanks v. United States, 306 U.S. 436 ; Burnet v. Harmel, 287 U.S. 103 . Neither term is appropriate to characterize the demolition of property and subsequent compensation for its loss by an insurance company. Plainly that pair of events was not a sale. Nor can they be regarded as an exchange, for “exchange,” as used in § 117(d), implies reciprocal transfers of capital assets, not a single transfer to compensate for the destruction of the transferee’s asset. [ 313 U.S. at 249 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sirbo Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner

2. “These sections demonstrate that Congress has expressly specified the ambiguous transactions which are to be regarded as sales or exchanges for income tax purposes. They are convincing evidence that the involuntary conversion of respondent’s property, which bears far less resemblance to a sale or exchange than the transactions embraced in §§ 115(c), 117(c), and 117 (f) is not to be placed in one or the other of those categories by implication. 313 U.S. at 251, 61 S.Ct. at 881, 85 L.Ed. at 1313. 7”

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