Rushing v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] taxpayer certainly may not receive the benefits of the installment sales provisions if, through his machinations, he achieves in reality the same result as if he had immediately collected the full sales price, or, in our case, the full liquidation proceeds. As we understand the test, in order to receive the installment sale benefits the seller may not directly or indirectly have control over the proceeds or possess the economic benefit therefrom. (Emphasis added).”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Trivett v. Commissioner · Wrenn v. Commissioner

2. “(1) In general.— * * * a person who regularly sells or otherwise disposes of personal property on the installment plan may return as income therefrom in any taxable year that proportion of the installment payments actually received in that year which the gross profit, realized or to be realized when payment is completed, bears to the total contract price. (2) Total contract price. — For purposes of paragraph (1), the total contract price of all sales of personal property on the installment plan includes the amount of carrying charges or interest which is determined with respect to such sales and is added on the books of account of the seller to the established cash selling price of such property. * * * (b) Sales of Realty and Casual Sales of Personalty.—”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Goodman v. Commissioner · Lustgarten v. Commissioner

3. ““We think it clear from a reading of these cases that a taxpayer may, if he chooses, reap the tax advantages of the installment sales provision if he actually carries through an installment sale, even though this method was used at his insistence and was designed for the purpose of minimizing his tax. Williams v. United States, supra, 219 F.2d [523] at 527; Pozzi v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra, 49 T.C. [119] at 128. On the other hand, a taxpayer certainly may not receive the benefits of the installment sales provisions if, through his machinations, he achieves in reality the same result as if he had immediately collected the full sales price, or, in our ease, the full liquidation proceeds. As we understand the test, in order to receive the installment sale benefits the seller may not directly or indirectly have control over the proceeds or possess the economic benefit therefrom. In Griffiths v. Helvering, supra, [ 308 U.S. 355 , 60 S.Ct. 277 , 84 L.Ed. 319 ] the Supreme Court denied installment sale benefits to a seller who arranged for an intermediate corporation which he wholly controlled to collect the full sales price from the buyer and pay it over to him in installments. In Griffiths the Court said: “ ‘We cannot too often reiterate that “taxation is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is with actual command over the property taxed — the actual benefit for which the tax is paid.” Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378 , 50 S.Ct. 336 , 74 L.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bowen v. Commissioner · Nye v. United States