Rogers v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate ·

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

1. “[[Image here]] (b) Tax in Case of Capital Net Loss. — In the case of any taxpayer, other than a corporation, who for any taxable year sustains a capital net loss (as hereinafter defined in this section), there shall be levied, collected, and paid, in lieu of all other taxes imposed by this title, a tax determined as follows: a partial tax shall first be computed upon the basis of the ordinary net income at the rates and in the manner as if this section had not been enacted, and the total tax shall be this amount minus 12¾ per centum of the capital net loss; but in no case shall the tax of a taxpayer who has sustained a capital net loss be less than the tax computed without regard to the provisions of this section. (c) Definitions. — For the purposes of this title— * * . * * * * « (2) “Capital loss” means deductible loss resulting from the sale or exchange of capital assets. ******* (6) “Capital net loss” means the excess of the sum of the capital losses plus the capital deductions over the total amount of capital gain. [[Image here]] (8) “Capital assets” means property held by the taxpayer for more than two years (whether or not connected with his trade or business), but does not include stock in trade of the taxpayer or other property of a kind which would properly be included in the inventory of the taxpayer if on hand at the close of the taxable year, or property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale in the course of his trade or business. * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bingham v. Commissioner

2. “While we agree with the court that under the facts of the Hale case the compromise of a note was not a “sale” or an “exchange”, because the property in the notes was extinguished, and not sold, we do not believe that this case is controlling of the instant proceedings. Petitioners disposed of real property. They are claiming the right to a loss deduction for the reason that the amount realized was less than the cost of the property to them. No compromise of a note is involved. Petitioners gave up all of their right, title and interest in the real property for the equivalent of $38,000, and thereby reduced the amount of the loss resulting from their investment in the property by that amount. If petitioners had transferred the property for $38,000 in cash and then had used the cash to satisfy their indebtedness, it is clear that they would have made a sale of their property. We do not believe that the situation is changed where the property is transferred directly to the creditor in satisfaction of the indebtedness. Of. United States v. Hendler, 303 U. S. 564 ; E. F. Simms, 28 B. T. A. 988, 1030 * * *.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bingham v. Commissioner

3. “* * * Neither business men nor lawyers call the compromise of a note a sale to the maker. In point of law and in legal parlance property in the notes as capital assets was extinguished, not sold. In business parlance the transaction was a settlement and the notes were turned over to the maker, not sold to him. In John H. Watson, Jr., v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 27 B. T. A. 463, overruling Henry P. Werner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 15 B. T. A. 482, it was Reid tliat the payment at maturity, of the face amount of bonds purchased at a premium, was not a sale or exchange resulting in a capital loss. Tf the full satisfaction of an obligation does not constitute a sale or exchange, neither does partial satisfaction. * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stewart v. Commissioner