McCarthy Co. v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
80 F.2d 618 · 1935
Citation profile
13 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2017 · most notably United States v. Price (1960), Shambaugh v. Scofield (1942)
13 federal appellate ·
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. § 272 · 26 U.S.C. § 277 · 26 U.S.C. § 48
Relies on Bowers v. New York & Albany Lighterage Co. · Stange v. United States · E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. v. Davis · Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co. · Williams v. Kidd
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“quite evident that the taxpayer was in no way misled by the notice and clearly understood it to be one in respect to its tax liability for the years in question.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Section 274(a), supra ( 26 U.S.C.A. § 1048 [ 26 U.S.C.A. § 272 (a)]), contains the initial and important condition, ‘If in the case of any taxpayer, the commissioner determines that there is a deficiency in respect of the tax imposed by this chapter/ etc. “This condition, set out at the very beginning of the section, assuredly qualifies all the other provisions contained in such section. “One of those provisions is subdivision (d), § 274 (26 U.S.C.A. § 1048b [ 26 U.S.C.A. § 272 (d)]), upon which the appellant chiefly relies. Reading that subdivision in the light of the foregoing condition specifically set forth in subdivision (a), we are impelled to the conclusion that the taxpayer’s ‘right’ ‘to waive the restrictions provided in section 1048 of this title [subdivision (a) of this section]’ is qualified by the condition specified in the very subdivision (a) just referred to, namely, ‘if in the case of any taxpayer, the commissioner determines that there is a deficiency in respect of the tax,’ etc. If there is no determination of deficiency by the Commissioner, there is no right of appeal for the taxpayer to waive; for the provisional report of an internal revenue agent cannot be made the basis of an appeal. This is clear from the terms of the subsection itself, which computes the time allowed for the filing of a petition with the Board of Tax Appeals, not from the mailing of an agent’s report but from the mailing of the Commissioner’s notice of deficiency.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The first sentence of the petition filed before the Board prays for a redetermination of the deficiency set forth in the very notice that the petitioner claims was misdirected. In view of such record, and of such uncontradicted findings by the Board, we regard the petitioner's criticism of the address as too microscopic to merit extended discussion. Relying upon a number of recent decisions by Circuit Courts of Appeals, in the case of Haag v. Commissioner , (C.C.A.7) 59 F.(2d) 516 , 618 , the court said:”
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.