Lilly v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
146 federal appellate · 12 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 303 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2006 · most notably Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. F Tellier (1966), Carlos and Jacqueline Marcello v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Joseph, Jr. And Anastasia Marcello v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1967)
146 federal appellate · 12 district · 13 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
reviewedthe decision below (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 23
Relies on Welch v. Helvering · Deputy v. du Pont · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Heininger · Kornhauser v. United States · Textile Mills Securities Corp. 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 303 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Assuming for the sake of argument that, under some circumstances, business expenditures which are ordinary and necessary in the generally accepted meanings of those words may not be deductible * * when they ‘frustrate sharply defined national or state policies proscribing particular types of conduct,’ * * * nevertheless the expenditures now before us do not fall in that class. The policies frustrated must be national or state policies evidenced by some governmental declaration of them. In 1943 and 1944 there were no such declared public policies proscribing the payments which were made by petitioners to the doctors. “Customs and the actions of organized professional organizations have an appropriate place in determining in a factual sense what are ordinary and necessary expenses at a given time and place. * * * They do not, however, in themselves constitute the ‘sharply defined national or state policies’ the frustration of which may, as a matter of law, preclude the deductibility of an expense under § 23(a) (1) (A).””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In the Heininger case, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in referring to such distinction [i. e., between the lawful or unlawful character of the business expense] said: “ ‘* * * Congress has not said that discrimination shall be made. Neither has the Department had the hardihood to make such a material change by way ■of its regulations. If this change is to be made and the policy altered, let Congress do it. Congress would need only to add the word “legal” before the word “trade” in the third line of Section 23(a) (1). “ ‘We are asked, in the guise of construing the words “ordinary and necessary”, to amend the statute. In other words, to engage in a little judicial legislation. We decline the invitation’.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In computing net income there shall be allowed as deductions: “(a) Expenses. “(1) Trade or business expenses. “(A) In general. All the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, * * * »*”
2 later decisions 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.