Perkins Bros. v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
78 F.2d 152 · 1935
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 1975
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Botany Worsted Mills v. United States · Reinecke v. Spalding · Duffy v. Central Railroad · Herald-Despatch Co. v. Commissioner · Danville Press, Inc. 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We have held that the circulation of a newspaper is an intangible capital asset, and that money expended in increasing it is a capital expenditure, and not deductible as an expense of carrying on the business [Meredith Pub. Co. v. Commissioner, 64 F. (2d) 890, 891; Public Opinion Pub. Co. v. Jensen, 76 F. (2d) 494, 496]; but where the expenditure is for the purpose of maintaining a circulation structure, then it is deductible as an ordinary and necessary expense, and these cases are clearly distinguishable from the instant case. The expenditures considered in the above-cited cases were for campaigns, drives, or contests carried on for the express purpose of increasing the circulation list, and as a result of which the circulation was tremendously increased. Here, it appears without dispute, that petitioner did not do this in 1928 and 1929, but carried on only the normal business of soliciting subscriptions for the purpose of keeping up the circulation structure which it had already built up and established to the normal or saturation point. * * * We must bear in mind that we are here considering the character of an expenditure, and that is dependent upon its general purpose rather than upon an incidental result. [Emphasis added.]”
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.