J. Stewart Mathews and Viola I. Mathews v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, J. Stewart Mathews v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
20 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably Philhall Corp. v. United States (1976), Ackerman v. United States (1964)
20 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
Relies on Kaltreider v. Commissioner · Bauschard v. Commissioner · Curtis Company (Formerly Curtis Engineering Company) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Farry v. Commissioner · Lobello v. Dunlap
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For purposes of this subtitle, the term capital assets means property held by the taxpayer (whether or not connected with his trade or business), but does not include— (1) ... property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is well settled that the question whether property sold by a taxpayer at a profit was property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business, within the meaning of the statute, is essentially a question of fact. Bauschard v. C. I. R, 279 F.2d 115 (C.A.6). No single factor or test is dispositive. Among the factors considered are: (1) the purpose for which the property was acquired; (2) the purpose for which it was held; (3) improvements and their extent, made to the property by taxpayer; (4) frequency, number and continuity of sales; (5) the extent and substantiality of the transactions; (6) the nature and extent of taxpayer’s business; (7) the extent of advertising to promote sales, or the lack of such advertising; and (8) listing of the property for sale directly or through brokers. Kaltreider v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 255 F.2d 833 (C.A.3). While petitioner may well have purchased and held certain of these properties for investment rather than for sale in the ordinary course of business, it was for the Tax Court, under all of the circumstances of the case, to draw its conclusions as to whether any of such purchases by the taxpayer were for investment, or was property held for sale in the ordinary course of business. The facts, and inferences to be drawn from the facts, are for the fact finder, which, in this case, is the Tax Court. On review of the Tax Court’s findings and conclusions, we cannot say that th”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“For purposes of this subtitle, the term “capital asset” means property held by the taxpayer (whether or not connected with his business), but does not include — (1) . . . property ... included in the inventory of the taxpayer . or property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business .”
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.