United States v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
574 F.2d 232 · 1978
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably United States v. Gaudin (1994), United States v. Carter (1984)
47 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
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. § 1 (Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2008) · 26 U.S.C. § 7206
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Cree v. Goldstein · Rinaldi v. United States · Petite v. United States · United States v. Barrera
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'whether a particular item must be reported in order that the taxpayer estimate and compute his tax correctly'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) Declaration under penalties of perjury. —Willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter; shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[sjection 7206(1) pertains to willful subscription to “any return, statement, or other document” made under penalty of perjury. Levy involved the question of whether Form 433-AB was a “statement” within the meaning of the statute. We held that “statement” referred only to documents required by the Internal Revenue Code or any lawfully promulgated regulation. Since no statute or regulation authorized the use of Form 433-AB, the IRS could not lawfully require its execution under penalties of perjury. The instant case does not involve interpretation of “statement.” For each tax year in question defendant filed a Form 1040, which clearly is a “return.” While there is no explicit requirement in the regulations for the completion and filing of Schedules E and F, it is implicit in required Form 1040 that such schedules, when appropriate, become integral parts of such form and are incorporated therein by reference.”
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.