Funk v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 2015
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
Relies on Helvering v. Clifford · Helvering v. Horst · Corliss v. Bowers · Harrison v. Schaffner · Douglas v. Willcuts
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Petitioner’s husband was a man of great wealth. It is inconceivable that the husband, having voluntarily placed such broad discretionary powers in Ms wife, and having no need for the trust income during the taxable years, could, successfully have complained in a court of equity in New Jersey that the trustee elected to pay all of the income to her self. In any event, as the court in Stix v. Commissioner, supra, 2 Cir., 152 F.2d 562 , pointed out, in order for a limitation •of this kind to restrict the absolute command that petitioner had over the income, it was incumbent on her to show what part of the income she could have been compelled to pay to her husband or to accumulate. “There is no suggestion in the record in this case that conditions existed during the taxable years relative to the respective needs of petitioner and her husband which, had petitioner taken all of the income, would have made her guilty of such gross and callous disregard of her husband’s needs, as compared to her own, that a court could be summoned to compel her to give her husband some measure of relief. That the husband did receive some of the trust income is unimportant. On the record, this distribution to him was a matter of petitioner’s grace and beyond his control. Petitioner has not shown the minimum which a court would have compelled her to give away or accumulate. Everything above such amount petitioner could have kept as her own by reason of the absolute discretionary power conferred upon h”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the right to require either the income or corpus to be paid to himself has been held to be sufficient for the taxation of the beneficiary of a trust under section 22 (a) . Whether the beneficiary exercises this right is, of course, not important.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.