Commissioner v. Bilder’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
103 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 240 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2004 · most notably Farrow v. United States (1978), 47 Cal. 3d 456 - Hutnick v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (1988)
103 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions
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. Robert M. (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 213 · 26 U.S.C. § 23 · 26 U.S.C. § 262
Relies on Association of Westinghouse Salaried Employees v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. · Boston Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States · United States v. Dickerson · Harrison v. Northern Trust Co.
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 240 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““a deduction for ‘transportation primarily for and essential to medical care’ shall not include the cost of any meals and lodging while away from home receiving medical treatment. For example, if a doctor prescribes that a taxpayer go to a warm climate in order to alleviate a specific chronic ailment, the cost of meals and lodging while there would not be deductible.” Treasury Regulation § 1.213-1 (e) (iv).”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Commissioner concedes that prior to the enactment of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 rental payments of the sort made by the taxpayer were recognized as deductible medical expenses. This was because § 23(x) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C.A. 23(x) though expressly authorizing deductions only for ‘amounts paid for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease,’ had been construed to include ‘travel primarily for and essential to * * * the prevention or alleviation of a physical or mental defect or illness,’ Treasury Regulations 111, § 29.-23(x)-l, and the cost of meals, and lodging during such travel, I.T. 3786, 1946-1 Cum.Bull. 76. See, e. g. Stringham v. Commissioner, 12 T.C. 580 , aff’d, 183 F.2d 579 ; Rev.Rule 55-261, 1955-1 Cum.Bull. 307.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(A) for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of the body,.- [and] (B) for transportation primarily for and essential to medical care referred to in subparagraph (A). .. .”
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.