Waterman Steamship Corp. v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
430 F.2d 1185 · 1970
Citation profile
34 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently April 2002 · most notably Owens v. Commissioner (1977), Edwards v. Your Credit, Inc. (1998)
34 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. § 1031
Relies on Gregory v. Helvering · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court Holding Co · Higgins v. Smith · Minnesota Tea Co. v. Helvering · Bullen v. State of Wisconsin
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But the solution of hard tax cases requires something more than the easy generalization that the substance rather than the form of a transaction is determinative of its tax effect. Gregory should not be considered a ‘talisman of magical powers’ since in numerous situations the form by which a transaction is effected does influence or control its tax consequences. Edwards v. Commissioner [of Internal Revenue], 10 Cir. 1969, 415 F.2d 578 . This generalization does, however, reflect the truth that Courts will look beyond the superficial formalities of a transaction to determine the proper tax treatment.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““The Income Tax imposes liabilities upon taxpayers based upon their financial transactions, and it is of course true that the payment of the tax is itself a financial transaction. If, however, the taxpayer enters into a transaction that does not appreciably affect his beneficial interest except to reduce his tax, the law will disregard it; for we cannot suppose that it was part of the purpose of the act to provide an escape from the liabilities that it sought to impose." (Emphasis supplied.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“the legal characterization for federal tax purposes of the transactions between the parties . . . is not a question of fact”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.