Brigham v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
470 F.2d 571 · 1972
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently April 2016
9 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 1312 · 26 U.S.C. § 6511
Relies on Bull v. United States · Douglas v. Alabama · Moses Lake Homes, Inc. v. Grant County · Commissioner v. Brown · Stone v. White
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The crucial issue is whether the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has ac tively maintained a position with regard to the 1962 determination which is inconsistent with the erroneous inclusion or recognition. The requirement of the maintenance of the inconsistent position is basic to the existence of the statutory mitigation provisions.... Otherwise, the mitigation provisions will not permit the taxpayers to “awaken the sleeping dog.” The Revenue Ruling was, in effect, an acquiescence with the Brown decision of the United States Supreme Court.... The function of the ruling was acquiescence, not command.... The Commissioner has not attempted to exploit the statute of limitations by adopting an inconsistent stance for an open year. The Commissioner, to the contrary, has merely acceded to the plaintiffs’ demand for the open year.... In the factual pattern before us, adjustments for one year do not have a consequential effect on other years.... After a change in the interpretation of the law, the taxpayers are attempting to reopen closed years....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When its benefits are sought by the taxpayer, the function of the doctrine [of equitable recoupment] is to allow the taxpayer to reduce the amount of a deficiency recoverable by the Government by the amount of an otherwise barred overpayment of the taxpayer. * * * Here no such situation exists. * * * Rather, the plaintiffs are attempting an extension of the doctrine of equitable recoupment to the case of a refund of taxes for an otherwise barred year.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[N]ot all cases dealing with inventory adjustments are subject to the mitigation provisions of sections 1311 through 1315. Inventory cases are also subject to the prerequisite that the party relying on the statute of limitations must be the one who has maintained the inconsistent position.”
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.