Helvering v. Walbridge’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 federal appellate · 3 district · 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Ever since the Act of 1918 the Regulations had provided that only upon dissolution of the firm did the partner individually • ‘realize’ any gain or loss on firm transactions, and at that time his gain was the difference between his liquidating dividend and the original cost to him of his contribution. Article 1570, Regulations 45, Act of 1918; article 1570, Regulations 62, Act of 1921; article 1603, Regulations 65, Act of 1924; - article 1603, Regulations 69, Act of 1926; article 604, Regulations 74, Act of 1928. Indeed if the liquidating dividend was in kind, no gain was ‘realized’ until the property distributed was sold, a provision of doubtful validity except perhaps in cases where the dividend did not itself have any ‘fair market value.’ In the face of such long continued departmental interpretation we should be slow to construe the statute otherwise; indeed we would not do so at all unless the statute flatly required it. It does not.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Long v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Flannery v. United States

2. “Perhaps there need not be a `market' to establish a `market value,' but there must be some assurance that the value is what a `market' would establish; and a `market' itself presupposes enough competition between buyers and sellers to prevent the exigencies of an individual from being exploited. It may well imply that the goods have several possible buyers, so that a necessitous seller shall not be confined to one; and that there are several possible sellers of the same goods or their substantial equivalent, so that a hard-pressed buyer shall not have to accept the first offer.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Goetz v. Commissioner · Alabama By-Products Corp. v. Patterson

3. “All the cases have required some more palpable measure than any available here, which can be no more than an opinion as to the value of a unique right of action for which there were no known buyers, nor any but an imaginary demand. [Citing cases.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Long v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue