Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 511 F.2d 259 - Rose v. United States

Rose v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

511 F.2d 259 · 1975

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
January 1988
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 2042 · 26 U.S.C. § 811

Relies on Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Holmes' Estate · Lober v. United States · United States v. O'MALLEY · White v. Poor · United States v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co.

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

  1. “A decedent is considered to have an “incident of ownership” in an insurance policy on his life held in trust if, under the terms of the policy, the decedent (either alone or in conjunction with another person or person) has the power (as trustee or otherwise) to change the beneficial ownership in the policy or its proceeds, or the time or manner of enjoyment thereof, even though the decedent has no beneficial interest in the trust.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “SEC. 2041. POWERS OF APPOINTMENT. (a) In General. — The value of the gross estate shall include the value of all property— [[Image here]] (2) Powers created after October 21, 1942. — To the extent of any property with respect to which the decedent has at the time of his death a general power of appointment created after October 21,1942, or with respect to which the decedent has at any time exercised,or released such a power of appointment by a disposition which is of such nature that if it were a transfer of property owned by the decedent, such property would be includible in the decedent’s gross estate under sections 2035 to 2038, inclusive. For purposes of this paragraph (2), the power of appointment shall be considered to exist on the date of the decedent’s death even though the exercise of the power is subject to a precedent giving of notice or even though the exercise of the power takes effect only on the expiration of a stated period after its exercise, whether or not on or before the date of the decedent’s death notice has been given or the power has been exercised. ******* (b) Definitions. — For purposes of subsection (a)— (1) General power of appointment. — The term “general power of appointment” means a power which is exercisable in favor of the decedent, his estate, his creditors, or the creditors of his estate; except that— (A) A power to consume, invade, or appropriate property for the benefit of the decedent which is limited by an ascertainable standard relating”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Under § 2036 Congress specifically levied the estate tax upon interests retained by a decedent in connection with an incomplete transfer . . . Under § 2042, however, Congress applied the tax to insurance over which a decedent possessed any incidents of ownership. The difference in statutory language is significant. 511 F.2d at 264 .”
    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.