Koch v. Alexander’s Empirical Analysis
561 F.2d 1115 · 1977
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2012 · most notably Hillsboro National Bank v. Commissioner (1983), Perez v. United States (2002)
17 federal appellate · 2 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. § 6211 · 26 U.S.C. § 6213
Relies on Miskovsky v. United States · Klinghamer v. Brodrick · Kearney v. A'Hearn · Kearney v. A'Hearn
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t would be utterly disruptive of the administration of the tax laws if a taxpayer could disregard his return and automatically change an assessment based thereon by making an amended return in his favor long after the expiration of the time for filing the original return.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Within 90 days ... after the notice of deficiency authorized in section 6212 is mailed ..., the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court for a redeter-mination of the deficiency.... [N]o assessment of a deficiency in respect of any tax ... and no levy or proceeding in court for its collection shall be made, begun, or prosecuted until such notice has been mailed to the taxpayer, nor until the expiration of such 90-day ... period, ... nor, if a petition has been filed with the Tax Court, until the decision of the Tax Court has become final. Notwithstanding the provisions of section ?k21(a), the making of such assessment or the beginning of such proceeding or levy during the time such prohibition is in force may be enjoined by a proceeding in the proper court, including the Tax Court.... The Tax Court shall have no jurisdiction to enjoin any action or proceeding or order any refund under this subsection unless a timely petition for a redetermi-nation of the deficiency has been filed and then only in respect of the deficiency that is the subject of such petition.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is simply no statutory provision authorizing the filing of amended tax returns . . . .”
2 later decisions 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.