Bohn v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It will be noted that the statute does not expressly mention-sales between the settlor and the fiduciary of a trust. Our inquiry is whether an intent to cover the transaction now at issue may be spelled out of the words ‘directly or indirectly’, and we are entitled, in the face of such ambiguity or doubtfulness of meaning, to consider the legislative history of the section. Caminetti v. United States, 242 U. S. 470 ; Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Lederer, 252 U. S. 523 . “We have already held this statutory provision to be ambiguous, and that the legislative history of the section here pertinent is not helpful. Shelden Land Co., 42 B.T.A. 498 . It is there stated merely that the general purpose of the section is to disallow losses on sales between members of a family because sales of that type have frequently been used to avoid income taxes. Light is cast on the problem, however, by considering the provisions and history of section 301(a) of the Revenue Act of 1937, which amended section 24(a) (6) by adding thereto a sentence forbidding the deduction of losses on sales between the settlor and fiduciary of a trust . . . “It seems to us that the reasonable inference to be drawn from the amendment of the section and the above statement is that transactions of the type at bar were not covered by the 1934 Act. The sale here was not between father and daughter, but between father and trustee for daughter. The daughter would not come Into full legal possession of the stock unti”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Clínica Dr. Mario Julia, Inc. v. Secretary of Treasury

2. “The sale here was not between father and daughter, but between father and trustee for daughter. The daughter would not come into full legal possession of the stock until the termination of the trust, and even then her estate might be defeated by her prior decease. No powers over the trust corpus were retained by petitioner, hence rendering inapposite Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U. S. 331 . To hold that the transaction falls within section 24 (a) (6) is to read something into an ambiguous statute which is not there, in an attempted clarification ad hoc.”

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