Tracy v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
70 F.2d 93 · 1934
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently June 1992
11 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 Beecher v. Bush · Marshall v. Commissioner · Voltz v. Treadway & Marlatt · Shepard v. Shepard · Allen-West Commission Co. v. Grumbles
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While certificates of stock are usually transferred by indorsement thereof to the purchaser or the donee, or by indorsement in blank and delivery with change of ownership recorded upon the books of the corporation, it must be borne in mind that what Tracy endeavored to give to his wife was an undivided interest, not in specific shares of stock, but in an open and continuing trading account. Concededly there was no delivery of any shares of stock, and there could be none. Tracy had no certificates to assign and deliver, and it is doubtful if his broker had them — certainly none that were earmarked for Tracy. All the donor had was a right to certain balances in the event that the account was closed, and in any event no more than a right to claim delivery of a certain number of shares from those in the possession of the broker at the time, or to be thereafter purchased by him. Manual delivery is not a condition indispensable to the completion of a gift. Smith v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (C.C.A. 7) 59 F. (2d) 5S3. It is clear that Tracy made such delivery as the subject-matter of the gift permitted. * * * Tracy did all that was necessary for him to do, and the facts as found permit of no inference other than that the transfer was recognized by the broker. * * * But, even were we to adopt the interpretation put upon Tracy’s letter by the Board, the respondent would have no better case. It is not unusual for a husband to have the sole management of a business or joint adven”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Please make a joint account of my transactions with your firm in the name of W. R. and Helen Tracy, effective January 1, 1925. Orders for transactions in this account will be given to you for the writer.”
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.