Lusthaus v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
327 U.S. 293 · 1946
Citation profile
368 federal appellate · 9 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 703 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1998 · most notably Commissioner v. Sunnen (1948), Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Culbertson (1949)
368 federal appellate · 9 district · 9 state decisions
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
reviewedLusthaus v. Commissioner (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Gregory v. Helvering · Helvering v. Clifford · Helvering v. Horst · Lucas v. Earl · Commissioner v. Tower
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 703 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The term `partnership' includes a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or other unincorporated organization, through or by means of which any business * * * is carried on.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““There can be no question that a wife and husband may,, under certain circumstances, become partners for tax, as for other, purposes. If she either invests capital originating with her or substantially Contributes to the control and management of the business, or otherwise performs vital additional services, or does all of these things she may be á partner as contemplated by 26 U.S.C., §§ 181, 182, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, §§ 181, 182. * * * But when she does not share in the management and control of the business, contributes no vital additional service, and where'the husband purports in some way ’to have given her a partner ship interest, the Tax Court may properly take these circumstances into consideration in determining whether the partnership is real within the meaning of the federal revenue laws.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““ * * * the question arises whether the partners really and truly intended to join together for the purpose of carrying on business and sharing in the profits or losses or both. And their intention in this respect is a question of fact, to be determined from testimony disclosed by their ‘agreement, considered as a whole, and by their conduct in execution of its provisions.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.