Tidwell v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Any organization which maintains quarters or arranges periodical dinners or meetings, for the purpose of affording its members an opportunity of congregating for social intercourse, is a ‘social * * * club or organization’ within the meaning of’ the Code, unless its social features are not a material purpose of the organization but are subordinate and merely incidental to the active furtherance of a different and predominant purpose, such as, for example, religion, the arts, or business.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Krug v. Rasquin · 133 F. Supp. 72 - Engineers' Club v. United States

2. ““Determination of character of club.— The Act includes not only ‘clubs’ but also ‘organizations’ of a social, athletic, or sporting character. The purposes and activities of a club and not its name determine its character for the purpose of the tax. Every club or organization having social, athletic, or sporting features is presumed to be included within the meaning of the phrase, ‘any social, athletic, or sporting club or organization,’ until the contrary has been,proved, and the burden of proof is upon it. Every such club or organization, therefore, unless it falls within the express exemption of the Act (see art. 38), must collect, return, and pay over the tax imposed by the Act,, unless and until it has satisfied the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that it is not in fact ‘social, athletic, or sporting’ within the meaning of the Act and as defined in these regulations. * * * ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Krug v. Rasquin

3. ““The test of taxability is not whether a club has any social features at all, but whether or not such activities, viewed, of course, in the light of all the circumstances of its existence including the declared purpose of the organization as shown by its constitution or by-laws, if their provisions are enforced, are what in fact provide the real reason for its existence and enable it to secure members and retain them. Another way to put the problem is ‘whether the social features of the club involved are merely incidental or whether, on the other hand, they are a material purpose of the organization.’ Union League Club of Chicago v. United States, supra [ 4 F.Supp. 929, 78 Ct. Cl. 351 ].””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Furniture Club v. United States