United States v. Benedict’s Empirical Analysis
338 U.S. 692 · 1950
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2018 · most notably American Automobile Association v. United States (1961), Georgia Railroad & Banking v. Redwine (1952)
30 federal appellate · 1 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.
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 117 · 26 U.S.C. § 162 · 26 U.S.C. § 23
Relies on Helvering v. Bliss · Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner · United States v. Pleasants · Green 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The narrow statutory question thus presented is whether the entire recognized capital gains or only that half taken into account under § 117 (b) shall constitute gross income for tax purposes. Stated conversely, the question is whether that half of a taxpayer’s recognized capital gains that is not taken into account for tax purposes shall be left out of account by way of its initial exclusion from gross income, or by way of its subsequent deduction from gross income. On this precise question the Code is silent. No provision of the Code and nothing in the legislative history or administrative practice expressly settles the course to be followed. We, therefore, seek the purposes of the applicable sections of the Code and adopt that construction which best gives effect to those purposes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The contrariety of views expressed by the Tax Court, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Court of Claims and now by this Court in the task of harmonizing §§ 22(a), 117(b) and 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code * * * conclusively proves the opaqueness, if not inherent incongruity of those provisions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“would result in taxing the capital gains at substantially less than 50% of the amount at which they would be taxed if they were ordinary income. To the extent that the amount subject to tax goes below that percentage, it fails to give effect to the purpose of § 117 (b). * * *”
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.