Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 356 U.S. 260 - Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. P G Lake

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. P G Lake’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

1,055
cited by 1,055 later decisions
22
cited 22 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

539 federal appellate · 15 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,055 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Frank Lyon Co. v. United States (1978), Golsen v. Commissioner (1970)

539 federal appellate · 15 district · 17 state decisions

53801958196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedCommissioner v. P. G. Lake, Inc. (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 117

Relies on Helvering v. Clifford · Helvering v. Horst · Burnet v. Harmel · Corn Products Refining Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Cited together with Corn Products Refining Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Hort v. Commissioner · Commissioner v. Gillette Motor Transport, Inc. · Helvering v. Horst · Gregory v. Helvering

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 1,055 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “essentially a substitute for what would otherwise be received at a future time as ordinary income.”
    30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “gain from the sale or exchange of a capital asset”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The purpose of § 117 (of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, pertaining to taxation of capital gains) was `to relieve the taxpayer from * * * excessive tax burdens on gains resulting from a conversion of capital investments, and to remove the deterrent effect of those burdens on such conversions.' (citation omitted). And this exception has always been narrowly construed so as to protect the revenue against artful devices.”
    4 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.