Motes v. Motes’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently October 2014
16 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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. § 152
Relies on Unimet Corp. v. United Steelworkers · State v. Copeland · Hughes v. Hughes · 178 W. Va. 563 - Cross v. Cross · 177 N.J. Super. 471 - Kikkert v. Kikkert
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.
“Following the amendment, all the IRS need concern itself with when facing a noncustodial parent claiming an exemption is whether the custodial parent has executed the requisite declaration. The administrative ease of such a procedure is obvious, but it should be of no concern to the IRS if the declaration was executed entirely voluntarily, in accordance with a stipulated settlement, or pursuant to court order. The IRS is merely interested in the orderly administration of revenue collections, which is enhanced by doing away with the “majority of support” test. That test necessitated extensive audits by the IRS, while compliance with the signed declaration requirement can be ascertained most expediently. We are not cited to, nor have we located, any authority indicating that Congress intended the 1984 amendment to divest state courts of their traditional authority and bestow a collateral economic benefit on custodial parents. Nor can we identify any legitimate policy reason for Congress to assert an interest in the division of what is tantamount to marital property, a task traditionally reserved under our federal system for each state’s domestic relations courts. In sum, the amendment was merely intended to enhance the administrative convenience of the IRS, not to interfere with state court prerogatives. (Citations omitted)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he minority view forces state courts to achieve financial parity indirectly, by downwardly adjusting otherwise appropriate alimony and child support, rather than achieving parity directly, by sensibly allocating the exemptions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“State court allocation of the exemption does not interfere with Congressional intent. It does not involve the IRS in fact-finding determinations. State court involvement has no impact on the IRS. Thus, allocation of the exemption is permissible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.