Lantz v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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

1. “Taxpayers filing a joint return are jointly and severally liable for the entire tax liability shown or that should have been shown on their return. 26 U.S.C. § 6013 (d)(3). But section 6015 of the Internal Revenue Code sets forth grounds — ‘innocent spouse’ rules first added to the Code in 1971 and liberalized since ... — for relieving the signer of a joint return of his or her joint and several liability for understatement or nonpayment of income tax due. Section 6015(f), captioned ‘equitable relief,’ provides that ‘under procedures prescribed by the [Secretary of Treasury], if (1) taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it is inequitable to hold the individual liable for any unpaid tax or any deficiency ...; and (2) relief is not available to such individual under subsection (b) or (c) [of section 6015], the [Secretary] may relieve such individual of such liability.’ By regulation the Treasury has fixed a deadline for filing claims under subsection (f) of two years from the IRS’s first action to collect the tax by (for example) issuing a notice of intent to levy on the taxpayer’s property. 26 C.F.R. § 1.6015-5 (b)(l); see also IRS Rev. Proc.2003-61 § 4.01(3); 26 U.S.C. § 6630 (a).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mannella v. Commissioner

2. “Under procedures prescribed by the Secretary [of Treasury], if— (A) a joint return has been made for a taxable year; (B) on such return there is an understatement of tax attributable to erroneous items of one individual filing the joint return; (C) the other individual filing the joint return establishes that in signing the return he or she did not know, and had no reason to know, that there was such understatement; (D) taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it is inequitable to hold the other individual liable for the deficiency in tax for such taxable year attributable to such understatement; and (E) the other individual elects (in such form as the Secretary may prescribe) the benefits of this subsection not later than the date which is 2 years after the date the Secretary has begun collection activities with respect to the individual making the election, then the other individual shall be relieved of liability for tax (including interest, penalties, and other amounts) for such taxable year to the extent such liability is attributable to such understatement.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mannella v. Commissioner

3. “We find that by explicitly creating a 2-year limitation in subsections (b) and (c) but not subsection (f), Congress has “spoken” by its audible silence. Because the regulation imposes a limitation that Congress explicitly incorporated into subsections (b) and (c) but omitted from subsection (f), it fails the first prong of Chevron. * Me * Had Congress intended a 2-year period of limitations for equitable relief, then of course it could have easily included in subsection (f) what it included in subsections (b) and (c). However, Congress imposed no deadline, yet the Secretary prescribed a period of limitations identical to the limitations Congress imposed under § 6015(b) and (c).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jones v. Commissioner