Commonwealth Container Corp. v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 1984
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 Barr v. United States · Hanover Bank v. Commissioner · James Armour, Inc. v. Commissioner · Verito v. Commissioner · Miller 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The reduction] shall not apply if the transferor corporation and the acquiring corporation are owned substantially by the same persons in the same proportion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Petitioner argues first that inasmuch as the stockholders of Tri-City had a controlling interest in petitioner both before and after the merger, there was the requisite continuity of interest in the operating loss carryover which Congress sought to require in order to make the entire operating loss carryover available to the acquiring corporation. We agree that in enacting section 381(c)(1) Congress sought to liberalize the carryover of operating losses in certain corporate reorganizations but we must also recognize that in section 382(b) Congress established an objective test to determine whether all or only a part of the operating loss carryover would be available to the acquiring corporation in such a reorganization; and that the test is based upon the percentage of interest in the acquiring corporation the stockholders of the loss corporation receive as a result of the reorganization. To interpret the statute otherwise would require reading the phrase "as the result of owning stock of the loss corporation” completely out of the statute; and this we are not justified in doing. Hanover Bank v. Commissioner, 369 U.S. 672 ; Frank W. Verito, 43 T.C. 429 . [See also n. 5 supra.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(b) Change of Ownership as the Result of a Reorganization.— (1) In General. — If, in the case of a reorganization specified in paragraph (2) of section 381(a), the transferor corporation or the acquiring corporation— (A) has a net operating loss which is a net operating loss carryover to the first taxable year of the acquiring corporation ending after the date of transfer, and (B) the stockholders (immediately before the reorganization) of such corporation (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as the "loss corporation”), as the result of owning stock of the loss corporation, own (immediately after the reorganization) less than 20 percent of the fair market value of the outstanding stock of the acquiring corporation,”
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.