Norman and Arlene Rodman, Appellants-Cross-Appellees v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Appellee-Cross-Appellant’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently May 2009 · most notably Buffalo Tool & Die Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner (1980), Elkins v. Commissioner (1983)
7 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
Relies on New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Duberstein D Stanton · Helvering v. Taylor · Cohan v. Commissioner · Helvering v. Horst
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) Partner who retires or sells interest in partnership.— (A) Disposition of entire interest. — The taxable year of a partnership shall close— (i) with respect to a partner who sells or exchanges his entire interest in a partnership, and (ii) with respect to a partner whose interest is liquidated, except that the taxable year of a partnership with respect to a partner who dies shall not close prior to the end of the partnership’s taxable year. Such partner’s distributive share of items described in section 702(a) for such year shall be determined, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate, for the period ending with such sale, exchange, or liquidation. (B) Disposition of less than entire interest. — The taxable year of a partnership shall not close (other than at the end of a partnership’s taxable year as determined under subsection (b)(1)) with respect to a partner who sells or exchanges less than his entire interest in the partnership or with respect to a partner whose interest is reduced, but such partner’s distributive share of items described in section 702(a) shall be determined by taking into account his varying interests in the partnership during the taxable year. [Emphasis supplied.]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“§ 704. Partner's Distributive Share. (a) Effect of Partnership Agreement. A partner’s distributive share of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit shall, except as otherwise provided in this section, be determined by the partnership agreement. (b) Distributive Share Determined by Income or Loss Ratio. A partner’s distributive share of any item of income gain, loss, deduction, or credit shall be determined in accordance with his distributive share of taxable income or loss of the partnership, as described in section 702(a)(9), for the taxable year, if— (1) the partnership agreement does not provide as to the partner’s distributive share of such item, or (2) the principal purpose of any provision in the partnership agreement with respect to the partner’s distributive share of such item is the avoidance or evasion of any tax imposed by this subtitle. (c)Contributed Property. (1) General Rule. In determining a partner’s distributive share of items described in section 702(a), depreciation, depletion, or gain or loss with respect to property contributed to the partnership by a partner shall, except to the extent otherwise provided in paragraph (2) or (3), be allocated among the partners in the same manner as if such property had been purchased by the partnership. (2)' Effect of Partnership Agreement. If the partnership agreement so provides, depreciation, depletion, or gain or loss with respect to property contributed to the partnership by a partner shall, under regulations pres”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“attempted assignment in the partnership agreement also falls within § 704(b)(2) 's caveat that a term in a partnership agreement cannot be controlling for tax purposes where its principal purpose is the evasion of taxes.”
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.