Brafman v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
384 F.2d 863 · 1967
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably Nicklaus v. Comm'r (2001), McCarty v. United States (1991)
32 federal appellate · 2 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. § 6203
Relies on Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. South Texas Lumber Co · Fawcus Mach Co v. United States · United States v. Updike · Lucas v. Pilliod Lumber Co. · Adams v. United States
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“by an assessment officer signing the summary record of assessment”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“SEC. 6901(c). Period of Limitations. — The period of limitations for assessment of any such liability of a transferee or a fiduciary shall be as follows: (1) Initial transferee. — In the case of the liability of an initial transferee, within 1 year after the expiration of the period of limitation for assessment against the transferor; [[Image here]] except that if, before the expiration of the period of limitation for the assessment of the liability of the transferee, a court proceeding for the collection of the tax or liability in respect thereof has been begun against the initial transferor or the last preceding transferee, respectively, then the period of limitation for assessment of the liability of the transferee shall expire 1 year after the return of execution in the court proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gumm v. Commissioner“We recognize that in sustaining Mrs. Brafman's contention regarding lack of proper assessment within the limitations period we are disposing of this case on what could be termed a “technical defense”. As the district court said in United States v. Lehigh, W.D. Ark.1961, 201 F.Supp. 224, 234 , this is both true and immaterial: Any procedural defense is in a sense “technical.” The procedures set forth in the Internal Revenue Code were prescribed for the protection of both Government and taxpayer. Neglect to comply with those procedures may entail consequences which the neglecting party must be prepared to face, whether such party be the taxpayer or the Government.”
1 later decision 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.