Fides v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently October 1996
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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
Relies on Caminetti v. United States · Shwab v. Doyle · Smietanka v. First Trust & Savings Bank · Taylor Secur., Inc. v. Commissioner · Foley Sec. Corp. 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 argued that the intent and purpose of Congress in the enactment of that section was to force distributions of earnings by personal holding companies so that surtax might be laid upon and collected from such distributions upon their receipt by the stockholders. Upon this premise it is urged that the application of this section to a corporation whose stockholders are not subj ect to surtax is to extend the meaning of the section beyond the Congressional intent. “Petitioner admits that it is within the definition of a personal holding company, as set out in subsection 351(b) (1), supra, because (1) its earnings are of the character there specified and (2) more than 50 percent of its capital stock was owned during the described period by not more than five individuals. It is obvious, concededly so, that petitioner is included in the unrestricted purview of ‘any corporation’ as provided by that subsection. In short, petitioner in effect admits it is within the taxed class if the language of the statute is controlling. It is urged, however, that in order to stay within the manifest purpose and policy of the legislation, as established by its history, the term ‘any corporation’ must be construed to mean ‘any corporation whose stockholders would be subject to surtax on distributed corporate earnings.’ It is contended that the ascertainment of the Congressional intent by reference to the history and purpose of the legislation which points to this construction, is justified by r”
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.