Baskin v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
738 F.2d 975 · 1984
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Kahn v. United States (1985), Lucian T. Zell, II v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1985)
29 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
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 26 U.S.C. § 6702 · 26 U.S.C. § 6703
Relies on Hoffman v. United States · Phillips v. Commissioner · Phillips v. Commissioner · Zicarelli v. New Jersey State Commission of Investigation · Rechtzigel v. Commissioner
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Civil penalty. — If— (1) any individual files what purports to be a return of the tax imposed by subtitle A but which— (A) does not contain information on which the substantial correctness of the self-assessment may be judged, or (B) contains information that on its face indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect; and (2) the conduct referred to in paragraph (1) is due to— (A) a position which is frivolous, or (B) a desire (which appears on the purported return) to delay or impede the administration of Federal income tax laws,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although a taxpayer may validly invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, he may not be the sole judge of whether .certain material is incriminating. A court must determine whether the taxpayer is justified in remaining silent. Where the danger of self-incrimination is not readily apparent, the claimant of the privilege has the burden of proving the danger exists. Any danger of incrimination must be real and substantial and not merely remote or speculative.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bayer v. Johnson
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.