Hubinger v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 2 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““During the taxable year the petitioner owned the barge Maryland which had been acquired by it in 1917. The cost of this barge had been recovered through depreciation deductions. prior to the taxable year. During the • taxable year the petitioner spent $15,523.30 in enlarging the hatches and in making other improvements. The parties have stipulated that the cost of these improvements was a capital outlay to be recoverable through deductions for depreciation during the estimated useful life of the barge. During the taxable year the petitioner also spent $17,593.32 in rebuilding the stern of the barge. It was discovered that the woodwork of the stern had rotted away., These rotted timbers and planks had to be torn out and replaced. Although the ’amount spent is claimed as a cost of repairs, the petitioner’s president testified that they amounted to a ‘replacement’ of the stern. Section 24 of the Internal Revenue Code provides in part as follows: “Section 24. Items not Deductible. “(a) General Rule. — In computing net income no deduction- shall in any case be allowed in respect of — ■ * JjC * * * * “(2) Any amount paid out for new buildings o>r for permanent improvement or betterments made to increase the value of any property or estate; “(3) Any amount expended in restoring property or in making good the exhaustion thereof for which an allowance is or has been made. “The petitioner contends that this expenditure 'of $17,593.32 falls in a different category from the expenditu”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. P. Dougherty Co. v. Commissioner · P. Dougherty Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

2. “In other words, where a loss sufficient to be regarded as within the purview of (a)(4) [losses incurred in a trade or business] or (a)(6) [casualty losses] occurs, it is the occasion rather than the precise kind of reconditioning done that determines whether the particular outlay involves “ordinary and necessary expenses” or “losses.” * * * [ 36 F.2d at 726 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. R. R. Hensler, Inc. v. Commissioner