← 66 TC 373 - Brittingham v. Commissioner

Brittingham v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

cited by 36 later decisions

January 2013

most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently January 2013 · most notably Achiro v. Commissioner (1981), Thompson v. Commissioner (1982)

2 federal appellate ·

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 19 U.S.C. § 1401A (Tariff Act of 1930)

Relies on Helvering v. Horst · Douglas v. Alabama · Local Union No. 12 v. National Labor Relations Board · Illinois ex rel. Kennedy v. Hurley · Bridges 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“Respondent may allocate income under section 482 in order to prevent "evasion of taxes or clearly to reflect the income.” The legislative history of section 482 indicates that it was designed to prevent evasion of taxes by the arbitrary shifting of profits, the making of fictitious sales, and other such methods used to "milk” a taxable entity. * * * The Commissioner has considerable discretion in applying this section and his determinations must be sustained unless he has abused his discretion. We may reverse his determinations only where the taxpayer proves them to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. * * *”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Brittingham v. Commissioner · Collins Electrical Co. v. Commissioner
“for the purposes of the statute. Cf. Rishell Phonograph Co., 2 B.T.A. 229, 232-233 (1925). Thus, it is not necessary that the same person or persons own or control each controlled business before section 482 can be applied, but there must be a common design for the shifting of income in order for different individuals to constitute the”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Bransford v. Commissioner · Robert M. Brittingham v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Dallas Ceramic Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Jeanne C. Brittingham v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Juan R. Brittingham, Cross-Appellant v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Cross-Appellee
“Different persons with a common goal or purpose for artificially shifting income can constitute the”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Bransford v. Commissioner · Robert M. Brittingham v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Dallas Ceramic Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Jeanne C. Brittingham v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Juan R. Brittingham, Cross-Appellant v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Cross-Appellee

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.