Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 604 F.2d 232 - United States v. Edelson

United States v. Edelson’s Empirical Analysis

604 F.2d 232 · 1979

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
1
states following
October 2012
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently October 2012 · most notably United States v. Wunder (1990), Jarvis v. Commissioner (1982)

18 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

39019791980199020002010decided

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. § 7203

Relies on Hoffman v. United States · Marchetti v. United States · United States v. Murdock · Texas v. Louisiana · Thompson v. United States

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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “it is now well established that tax forms that do not contain financial information upon which a taxpayer's tax liability can be determined do not constitute returns within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a] tax form requires disclosure of routine information necessary for the computation of tax liability and does not ordinarily compel testimony about facts that might lead to a criminal prosecution. Federal income tax information is sought in a non-aceusatorial setting and is not, as a general matter, extracted from a “highly selective group inherently suspect of criminal activities.” California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 430 , 91 S.Ct. 1535, 1539 , 29 L.Ed.2d 9 (1971). That such filings or the information contained therein may later appear in court to the detriment of the declarant does not, ipso facto, justify an assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege. As the Supreme Court noted in Byers : “Information revealed by these reports could well be ‘a link in the chain’ of evidence leading to prosecution and conviction. But under our holdings the mere possibility of incrimination is insufficient to defeat the strong policies in favor of a disclosure called for ....” Id., 428 , 91 S.Ct. at 1538 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[o]ne who uses the Fifth Amendment to protect his refusal to provide the disclosures required in a tax return should confine that use to specific objections to particular questions on the return for which a valid claim of privilege exists. He may not use the Fifth Amendment to draw a “conjurer’s circle” around the obligation to file a return.”
    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.