Mannella v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
631 F.3d 115 · 2011
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 6013 · 26 U.S.C. § 6015 · 26 U.S.C. § 66 · 26 U.S.C. § 7482 · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (§ 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Erie Co v. Tompkins · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Golsen v. Commissioner
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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“[U]nder Chevron, we must first determine if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue of law in the case, using traditional tools of statutory construction to determine whether Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue. If congressional intent is clear, the inquiry ends, as both the agency and the court must give effect to the plain language of the. statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where, however, a statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the court proceeds to step two, where it inquires whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.”
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.