J. E. Davant and Kathryn Davant v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. J. E. Davant and Kathryn Davant’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. v. Commissioner (1989), Owens v. Commissioner (1977)
58 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 368
Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Gregory v. Helvering · Phelps Dodge Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court Holding Co · Le Tulle v. Scofield
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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[A] change of corporate vehicles but not a change of substance. If Water had no assets of its own prior to the transfer of Warehouse’s operating assets to it, could we say that Water was any more than the alter ego of Warehouse? The answer is no. The fact that Water already had other assets that were vertically integrated with Warehouse’s assets does not change the fact that Water was Warehouse’s alter ego. Viewed in this way, it can make no practical difference whether the operating assets were held by Water or Warehouse, and a shift between them is a mere change in identity or form. At least where there is a complete identity of shareholders and their proprietary interests, as here, we hold that the type of transaction involved is a type “F” reorganization.” 366 F.2d at 884 (emphasis added).”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““cannot liquidate a corporation with the intention of immediately reincorporating it in order to hold back liquid assets and cash for the purpose of getting capital gains treatment or to obtain a stepped-up basis * * *. Such a liquidation reincorporation does not qualify for section 331”.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order to effectuate the intent of Congress the dividend, liquidation, redemption and reorganization sections of the Code must be examined and viewed as a functional whole.”
5 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.