Nathel v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
615 F.3d 83 · 2010
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 1001 · 26 U.S.C. § 1012 · 26 U.S.C. § 108 · 26 U.S.C. § 118 · 26 U.S.C. § 1366 · 26 U.S.C. § 1367 · 26 U.S.C. § 165 · 26 U.S.C. § 61 (Payment-in-Kind Tax Treatment Act of 1983)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · United States v. Mead Corp. · Christensen v. Harris County · Helvering v. Clifford
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“because section 118 excludes capital contributions from the gross income of an S corporation in all circumstances, capital contributions to an S corporation are 'permanently excludible' from the gross income of the S corporation and are thus tax-exempt income' under section 1.1366-1(a)(2)(viii), Income Tax Regs. ". Id. at 269 . The taxpayers relied heavily on Gitlitz . They claimed that Gitlitz should apply to other items of income specifically excluded from gross income under sections 101 through 136 . Id. We rejected the taxpayers' reasoning and distinguished Nathel from Gitlitz , noting that contributions to the capital of an S corporation are not listed in section 61 as items of gross income. Id. at 270-271 . We held that capital contributions are not items of income under section 1366(a)(1)(A) . Id. at 270 . The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed our decision, concluding that the taxpayers could not "rely on Gitlitz alone to overcome the long-standing treatment of capital contributions as distinct from income.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ball v. Comm'r“The legislative history of § 118(a) indicates that the purpose of that section was to codify pre-1954 court decisions holding that certain payments to corporations by nonshareholders should be treated as capital contributions and not as income to the corporations, just as shareholder contributions were not treated as income to the corporations.”
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.