B. Forman Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, McCurdy & Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, B. Forman Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, McCurdy & Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

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

1. ““In any case of two or more organizations, trades, or businesses (whether or not incorporated, whether or not organized in the United States, and whether or not affiliated) owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the same interests, the Secretary or his delegate may distribute, apportion, or allocate gross income, deductions, credits, or allowances between or among such organizations, trades, or businesses, if he determines that such distribution, apportionment, or allocation is necessary in order to prevent evasion of taxes or clearly to reflect the income of any of such organizations, trades, or businesses.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kahler Corp. v. Commissioner · Central Bank of the South v. United States

2. ““Taxpayers have advanced an argument, supported by case law, that the Commissioner may not create income where none actually existed. In Tennessee-Arkansas Gravel Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 112 F. 2d 508 (6th Cir. 1940), the court held that the Commissioner could not increase the income of a taxpayer whose property had been used by a related corporation without the payment of rent. The court concluded that, since no rent was called for, none could be created. In Smith-Bridgman & Co. v. Commissioner, 16 T.C. 287 (1951), the Commissioner had added interest to the taxable income of Smith-Bridgman & Co., as allegedly constituting interest which should have been charged by it .on noninterest bearing loans to its parent corporation, Continental Department Stores (Continental). Taxpayer did not report as income any interest on these loans. The Tax Court, in overruling the Commissioner, who had allocated interest to Smith-Bridgman, refused to authorize the creation of income where no income was realized. This decision was thought to rest on the fact that the Commissioner had added interest to taxpayer, but had failed to make an adjustment to the income of Continental. However, the rationale of Smith-Bridgeman (sic) was clarified in Huber Homes, Inc. v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 598 (1971), where it was held that the failure to make the adjustment was only a possible supporting factor, not a controlling factor. Smith was reaffirmed in PPG, Industries, Inc. v. Commissioner, 5”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kahler Corp. v. Commissioner · Latham Park Manor, Inc. v. Commissioner

3. “any kind of control, direct or indirect, whether legally enforceable or not, and however exercisable or exercised * * *.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Comtek Expositions, Inc. v. Comm'r · Collins Electrical Co. v. Commissioner