Smith v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Freytag v. Commissioner (1987), Miller v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1988)
14 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 26 U.S.C. § 7201 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206 · 7 U.S.C. § 6C
Relies on Gregory v. Helvering · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court Holding Co · Corn Products Refining Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Bessenyey v. Commissioner · Bessenyey 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If [the taxpayer's] analysis of the tax law is correct, nothing but commission costs and death would prevent a taxpayer from perpetually straddling, achieving perhaps the ultimate tax goal of permanent deferral.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Use of Commodity Straddles Can Effect Impressive Tax Savings,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“SEC. 108. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN LOSSES ON STRADDLES ENTERED INTO BEFORE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ECONOMIC RECOVERY TAX ACT OF 1981. (a)General Rule. — For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, in the case of any disposition of one or more positions— (1) which were entered into before 1982 and form part of a straddle, and (2) to which the amendments made by title V of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 do not apply, any loss from such disposition shall be allowed for the taxable year of disposition if such position is part of a transaction entered into for profit. (b) Presumption That Transaction Entered into for Profit. — For purposes of subsection (a), any position held by a commodities dealer or any person regularly engaged in investing in regulated futures contracts shall be rebuttably presumed to be part of a transaction entered into for profit. (c) Net Loss Allowed Whether or Not Transaction Entered Into for Profit. — If any loss with respect to a position described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) is not allowable as a deduction (after applying subsections (a) and (b)), such loss shall be allowed in determining the gain or loss from all positions in such straddle.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.