Flitcroft v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Sec. 2280. ¡Revocation Unless expressly made irrevocable by the instrument creating the trust, every voluntary trust shall be revocable by the trustor by writing filed with the trustee. When a voluntary trust is revoked by the trustor, the trustee shall transfer to the trustor its full title to the trust estate. Trusts created prior to the date when this act shall become a law shall not be affected hereby. * * *”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Estate of Davis v. Commissioner · Estate of Casey v. Commissioner

2. ““ * •» * When Congress fixed a tax on the possibility of the revest-ing of property or the distribution of income, the ‘necessary implication,’ we think, is that the possibility is to be determined by the state law. Grantees under deeds, wills and trusts, alike, take according to the rule of the state law. The power to transfer or distribute assets of a trust is essentially a matter of local law. * * * Congress has selected an event, that is the receipt or distributions of trust funds by or to a grantor, normally brought about by local law, and has directed a tax to be levied if that event may occur. Whether that event may or may not occur depends upon the interpretation placed upon the terms of the instrument by state law. Once rights are obtained by local law,' whatever they may be called, these rights are subject to the federal definition of taxability. Recently in dealing with the estate tax levied upon the value of property passing under a general power, we said that ‘state law creates legal interests and rights. The federal revenue acts designate what interests or rights, so created, shall be taxed.’ Morgan v. Commissioner, 309 U.S. 78, 80, 626 , 60 S.Ct. 424, 426 , 84 L.Ed. 585 (a case dealing with the taxability at death of prop-perty passing under a general power of appointment). In this case, as in Lyeth v. Hoey, we were determining what interests or rights should be taxed, not what interests or rights had been created and therefore applied the federal rule. * * * I”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 233 F. Supp. 220 - Estate of Farish v. United States

3. ““It is our conclusion that the state court was correct in finding that it was the intention of the parties to create irrevocable trusts from their inception ; that the decree of the state court adjudicated property rights and should be given effect in the federal courts; and that the decree of the state court was not in fact collusive, particularly in view of the fact that the District Director of Internal Revenue had full knowledge of the state court proceedings, having been joined initially as a party in that action.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 272 F. Supp. 571 - Van Den Wymelenberg v. United States