Wisconsin Cheeseman, Inc. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
388 F.2d 420 · 1968
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently March 2010 · most notably Patzkowski v. United States (1978), John E. Leslie and Evelyn G. Leslie v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue (1969)
20 federal appellate · 3 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. § 163 · 26 U.S.C. § 265
Relies on United States v. United Mine Workers of America · United States v. Atlas Life Insurance Co. · Illinois Terminal Railroad v. United States · Drybrough 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is necessary [for the Commissioner] to establish a sufficiently direct relationship of the continuance of the debt for the purpose of carrying the tax-exempt bonds.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * one who borrows to buy tax-exempts and one who borrows against tax-exempts already owned are in virtually the same economic position. Section 265(2) makes no distinction between them. [Wisconsin Cheeseman, Inc. v. United States, 388 F.2d 420 , 422 (7th Cir. 1968)].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““No deduction shall be allowed for— * * * * * * (2) Interest. — Interest on indebtedness incurred or continued to purchase or carry obli- gations (other than obligations of the United States issued after September 24, 1917, and originally subscribed for by the taxpayer) the interest on which is wholly exempt from the taxes imposed by this subtitle. In applying the preceding sentence to a financial institution (other than a bank) which is a face-amount certificate company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-l and following) and which is subject to the banking laws of the State in which such institution is incorporated, interest on face-amount certificates (as defined in section 2(a)(15) of such Act) issued by such institution, and interest on amounts received for the purchase of such certificates to be issued by such institution, shall not be considered as interest on indebtedness incurred or continued to purchase or carry obligations the interest on which is wholly exempt from the taxes imposed by this subtitle, to the extent that the average amount of such obligations held by such institution during the taxable year (as determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate) does not exceed 15 percent of the average of the total assets held by such institution during the taxable year (as so determined).””
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.