Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 315 U.S. 626 - Spreckels v. Helvering

Spreckels v. Helvering’s Empirical Analysis

315 U.S. 626 · 1942

Citation profile

208
cited by 208 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
August 2017
most recently cited

110 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 208 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2017 · most notably Woodward v. Commissioner (1970), Dwight A. Ward v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Hanna P. Ward v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1955)

110 federal appellate · 3 district ·

63019421950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedSpreckels v. Commissioner (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Helvering v. Winmill · Helvering v. Union Pacific Railroad · Commissioner v. Covington · Neuberger v. Commissioner

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 208 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In Helvering v. Winmill, 305 U. S. 79 , 59 S.Ct. 45 , 83 L.Ed. 52 , we held that a taxpayer who bought and sold securities could not deduct the commissions paid on his purchases as a business expense. Although the Winmill case arose under the Revenue Act of 1932, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev. Acts, page 482, et seq., the statutory provisions and regulations there relevant are identical with those again in controversy here. And the conclusion we reached there —that a general regulation designating ‘commissions’ as one of a long list of deductible business expenses is not controlling in the face of a specific regulation pertaining to commissions on securities transactions— is equally applicable here.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “practical considerations of accounting convenience which make it as difficult for such dealers, [in the business of buying and selling securities] in many instances, to set commissions off against the proceeds of individual sales as it would be for the merchant of other wares to treat his selling expenses only as a series of subtractions from the selling price realized on particular items of his stock.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A] general regulation designating `commissions' as one of a long list of deductible business expenses is not controlling in the face of a specific regulation pertaining to commissions on securities transactions.”
    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.