Hamrick v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 1981
7 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 1235
Relies on Helvering v. Southwest Consolidated Corp. · Hartford Fire Insurance v. Roberto · American Bantam Car Co. v. Commissioner · Amen v. Commissioner · Carlberg 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Purpose. . . . 15 "The Certificates can produce nothing other than stock and nothing other than a continuity of interest. The Certificates therefore fit the expressed basic purpose of the tax free provisions of the reorganization sections. 16 "2. Practicality. . . . 17 "We emphasize also that, however one may choose to describe it, the Certificate of Contingent Interest represented only International common and nothing else. What the holder possessed was either stock or it was nothing. 18 "For these reasons of purpose, practicality, precedent and substance, we hold that the property interest represented by the Certificates of Contingent Interest in this reorganization is 'stock' within the meaning of § 354(a)(1) rather than 'other property' within the meaning of § 356(a)(1) or 'boot' and that the Certificates' receipt by the taxpayer in 1956 did not result in recognized income to her.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The respondent concedes that the stock issued in 1957 was received in exchange for the transfer of property. The contract right to receive additional stock was also a part of the consideration for the transfer. The right, as in Carlberg, can produce nothing other than stock to the petitioner. While the exact number of shares is not specified, what the petitioner can receive is nothing other than stock. Applying the rule of substance over form, we must conclude that the substance of the contract provides for only a stockholder’s interest. It does not represent current gain, but additional equity ownership. [Id. at 33.]”
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.