Kosinski v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
541 F.3d 671 · 2008
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Pfeil v. State Street Bank & Trust Co. (2012), Greer v. Commissioner (2010)
4 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. § 6015 · 26 U.S.C. § 6663 · 26 U.S.C. § 7454
Relies on United States v. Booker · Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Baxter v. Palmigiano · McPherson v. Kelsey · United States v. Silverman
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the precise issue raised in the present case must have been raised and actually litigated in the prior proceeding; (2) determination of the issue must have been necessary to the outcome of the prior proceeding; (3) the prior proceeding must have resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the party against whom estoppel is sought must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“After reading all of this, one might question how a determination reached in a criminal-sentencing proceeding could ever satisfy this issue preclusion requirement [that the party against whom estoppel is asserted have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding] — whether an individual or the government seeks to invoke the defense. And, to be sure, we know of no case (and the parties have cited none) where a federal court has ascribed preclusive effect to a sentencing court’s findings of fact .... But to resolve this case we need not, and therefore do not, decide whether sentencing determinations categorically or even presumptively lack preclusive power. We simply conclude, for the reasons given, that the Kosinskis’ claim falls far short of the mark and therefore presents no ground for overturning the Tax Court’s conclusion concerning the amount of their tax deficiency.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“any conduct, the likely effect of which would be to mislead or to conceal.”
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.