Weller v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
13 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably Harwood v. Commissioner (1984), Harris v. Commissioner (1974)
13 federal appellate ·
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
Relies on Ithaca Trust Co. v. United States · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Disston · Fondren v. Commissioner · McMurtry v. Commissioner · Huntington Nat'l Bank v. Commissioner
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The tables] must be used to value annuities unless it is shown that the result is so unrealistic and unreasonable that either some modification in the prescribed method should be made, or complete departure from the method should be taken, and a more reasonable and realistic means of determining value is available. The party challenging applicability of the tables has the substantial burden of demonstrating that the tables produce an unreasonable result.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“More importantly, we conclude that in abandoning the Weller principle [and applying the tables in situations where the table does not produce the value that reasonably approximates the fair market value of the gift] the Tax Court uprooted § 25.2512-5 and its tables from their statutory foundation — to determine the fair market value of the property on the date of the gift. We agree with the court in Green that the tables should apply unless the facts present a substantial reason for departure. But whenever use of the tables would produce a substantially unrealistic and unreasonable result, and a more reasonable and realistic means of determining value is available, the statute requires, and decades of case law confirm, that the tables may not be used by either the Commissioner or the taxpayer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“meet the stated conditions. Clearly this interpretation of the statute does not authorize exclusion of a non-qualifying gift of principal simply because it is accompanied by a qualifying gift of income. 16 Our approval of the Commissioner's revised position is consistent with the pre-1954 cases recognizing that a gift may be separated into component parts, one of which may qualify as a present interest for purposes of the annual exclusion. 6 These decisions permitted exclusion only of the qualifying component. The taxpayers argue too much when they suggest that those cases”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.