Poole v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently April 2009
1 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 · 26 U.S.C. § 24
Relies on McWilliams v. Commissioner · Associated Patentees, Inc. v. Commissioner · Haverty Realty & Inv. Co. v. Commissioner · Thomas Flexible Coupling Co. v. Commissioner · Thomas Flexible Coupling Co. 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is the intention of your committee that, if the mode of payment is as described in subsection (a), the sale of a patent by any 'holder' must qualify under the section in order for such 'holder' to obtain capital gain treatment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * The sale of a patent between an individual and a corporation more than 50 percent in value of the outstanding stock of which is owned, directly or indirectly, by or for such individual would not * * * be entitled to capital gain treatment under this section. It is not considered that this limitation will in any way narrow the opportunity of inventors to dispose of their patents through normal business channels; on the other hand, this limitation should prevent possible abuses arising from the sale of patents within essentially the same economic group." [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“* * * the transfer of patents from Poole to Revolvex was not a transfer to an unrelated person, as contemplated by section 1235, because it was, in substance, an indirect transfer to Ventoura, a related person. The patents remained within essentially the same economic unit and subject to the holder’s [Poole’s] control. [ 46 T.C. at 403 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.