Corn Products Refining Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

776 federal appellate · 38 district · 30 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 1,577 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “profits and losses arising from the everyday operation of a business”

   70 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Arkansas Best Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Pool v. Commissioner

2. ““As to the finding with respect to the nature of taxpayers’ business, these principles are well-settled: “ ‘There is no fixed formula or rule of thumb’ for determining whether property is held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of the taxpayer’s business and ‘Each case must, in the last analysis, rest upon its own facts.’ No single factor or test is disposi-tive. Factors considered are: (1) the purpose for which the property was acquired; (2) the purpose for which it was held; (3) improvements, and their extent, made to the property by taxpayers; (4) frequency, number and continuity of sales; (5) the extent and substan-tiality of the transactions; (6) the nature and extent of taxpayer’s business; (7) the extent of advertising to promote sales, or the lack of such advertising; and (8) listing of the property for sale directly or through brokers.” (Citations omitted.)”

   24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Arkansas Best Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Smith v. Commissioner

3. ““ * * * To avoid a recurrence of this situation, petitioner, in 1937, began to establish a long position in corn futures ‘as a part of its corn buying program’ and ‘as the most economical method of obtaining an adequate supply of raw corn’ without entailing the expenditure of large sums for additional storage facilities. At harvest time each year it would buy futures when the price appeared favorable. It would take delivery on such contracts as it found necessary to its manufacturing operations and sell the remainder in early summer if no shortage was imminent. If shortages appeared, however, it sold futures only as it bought spot corn for grinding. In this manner it reached a balanced position with reference to any increase in spot corn prices. It made no effort to protect itself against a decline in prices. “In 1940 it netted a profit of $680,587.39 in corn futures, but in 1942 it suffered a loss of $109,969.-38. In computing its tax liability Corn Products reported these figures as ordinary profit and loss from its manufacturing operations for the respective years. It now contends that its futures were ‘capital assets’ under § 117 and that gains and losses therefrom should have been treated as arising from the sale of a capital asset. In support of this position it claims that its futures trading was separate and apart from its manufacturing operations and that in its futures transactions it was acting as a ‘legitimate capitalist’. * * *»”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Arkansas Best Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · 187 F. Supp. 742 - Weiler v. United States