Frank v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
9 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 1998 · most notably Pagel, Inc. v. Commissioner (1988), United States v. Pacheco (1990)
9 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. § 61 (Payment-in-Kind Tax Treatment Act of 1983)
Relies on Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Duberstein D Stanton · Commissioner v. LoBue · Commissioner v. Smith · Hirsch 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“******* (2)(i) If the option is exercised by the person to whom it was granted but, at the time an unconditional right to receive the property subject to the option is acquired by such person, such property is subject to a restriction which has a significant effect on its value, the employee realizes compensation at the time such restriction lapses or at the time the property is sold or exchanged, in an arm’s length transaction, whichever occurs earlier, and the amount of such compensation is the lesser of— (a) The difference between the amount paid for the property and the fair market value of the property (determined without regard to the restriction) at the time of its acquisition, or (b) The difference between the amount paid for the property and either its fair market value at the time the restriction lapses or the consideration received upon the sale or exchange, whichever is applicable. * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“for purposes of this section, tbe fair market value of tbe option is not readily ascertainable unless tbe value of tbe option privilege can be measured with reasonable accuracy. In determining whether tbe value of tbe option privilege is readily ascertainable, and in determining tbe amount of such value when such value is readily ascertainable, it is necessary to consider— (a) Whether tbe value of the property subject to tbe option can be ascertained; (b) Tbe probability of any ascertainable value of such property increasing or decreasing; and (e) Tbe length of tbe period during which the option can be exercised.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“it appears to me that a restriction which has a significant effect on its value is not limited as to source and if the Securities Act of 1933 in its operation restricts the ready sale of a security then it is squarely a restriction within the meaning of the regulation. 1 Examples are merely illustrative and are not controlling where the language is clear and explicit as it is here.”
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.