United States v. Yip’s Empirical Analysis
592 F.3d 1035 · 2010
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 26 U.S.C. § 164 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206 · 31 U.S.C. § 5314
Relies on Rav v. City of St Paul Minnesota · Commissioner v. Tufts · Bussell v. United States · 128 S. Ct. 853 - Eura v. United States · United States v. DeGeorge
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[D]eductions are not permissible if they are unintentionally created or are unrelated to the tax violation, because such deductions are not part of the ‘object of the offense’ or intended loss.”). Thus, unclaimed deductions for student loan interest or solar energy credits, for example, are not considered because they do not relate to the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“not entitle a defendant to reduce the tax loss charged to him by the amount of potentially legitimate, but unclaimed, deductions even if those deductions are related to the offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Klein v. Comm'r“unless a more accurate determination of the tax loss can be made.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Klein v. Comm'r
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.