Wurlitzer v. Helvering’s Empirical Analysis
81 F.2d 928 · 1936
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 1959
5 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. § 113
Relies on Heiner v. Donnan · Taft v. Bowers · Snyder v. Helvering · Wurlitzer 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the property was acquired by gift after December 31, 1920, the basis shall be the same as it would be in the hands of the donor or the last preceding owner by whom it was not acquired by gift, * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Respondent was correct in applying section 113 (a) (2) and in valuing the stock as of March 1, 1913. Section 113 (a) (2) applies to all gifts irrespective of their nature. The statute makes no distinction between gifts inter vivos and gifts in contemplation of death. Also the legislative history of the statute strongly supports this conclusion. Section 113 (a) (5) (the section here involved) as introduced, contained a provision making it apply to property, acquired by transfer in contemplation of death. Section 113 (a) (3) contained a provision that section 113 (a) (2) should not apply to transfers in contemplation of death. Each of these provisions was stricken out in conference, and the Senate Committee on Finance in its report as to the bill said: “The effect of striking out the last sentence of section 113 (a) (3) is also to make the basis in the case of gifts in contemplation of death or to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after death, if made after December 31,1920, the same as the basis which the property would have in the hands of the donor or the last preceding owner by whom it was not acquired by gift.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Section 113(a)(2) applies to all property acquired after December 31, 1920 by gift. It does not apply: “(1) To property acquired by devise or bequest (see section 113(a) (5); or “(2) To property acquired by an instrument which, under section 113 (a)(5), is to be treated as though it were a will. “Section 113(a)(2) applies to all gifts of whatever description, whenever and however made, perfected, or taking effect; whether in contemplation of or intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after the donor’s death; or whether made by means of the exercise (other than by will) of a power of appointment or revocation, or any other power. Section 113(a)(2) applies whether the gift was made by a transfer in trust or otherwise.””
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.