Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 35 BTA 482 - Alverson v. Commissioner

Alverson v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

1937

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
May 2007
most recently cited

6 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 2007

6 federal appellate ·

8019371940195019601970198019902000decided

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

Relies on United States v. Ludey · Lucas v. Kansas City Structural Steel Co. · Heiner v. Tindle · Blum's, Inc. v. Commissioner · Chatham & Phenix Nat'l Bank 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “* * * The word “necessary” as used in the statute means “appropriate” and “helpful.” Blackmer v. Commissioner, 70 Fed. (2d) 255. Situated as petitioner was with reference to his business affairs and his method of handling them, he deemed it appropriate and helpful to make the expenditure in order to realize maximum returns. Profits made on his investments in his dealings on the stock exchange arc taxable, and losses minimized serve to increase his taxable net income from other sources. It is not material that petitioner had other or larger business interests in which he was engaged. The statute is not so restricted as to confine deductions to a single business or principal business of the taxpayer. A taxpayer may carry on more than one trade or business at the same time. “Any trade or business” is the broad language of the statute. We, therefore, conclude that taxpayer, in dealing on the stock exchange to the extent he was during the taxable year, was carrying on a trade or business within the meaning of the statute, and that the amount expended for statistical services, information and advice was reasonable, in view of the volume of' business transacted, and was an ordinary and necessary expense in connection with the business and the deduction should be allowed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.