United States v. Nordbrock’s Empirical Analysis
828 F.2d 1401 · 1987
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently July 2010
6 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 26 U.S.C. § 6107 · 26 U.S.C. § 6695 · 26 U.S.C. § 6700 · 26 U.S.C. § 7407 · 26 U.S.C. § 7408 · 26 U.S.C. § 7602 · 28 U.S.C. § 1340
Relies on Alder v. United States · Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe · United States v. Conforte · Trustees of the Amalgamated Insurance Fund v. Geltman Industries, Inc. · United States v. Buttorff
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“where the failure 'is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect' " was not willful, and that it followed that the willfulness requirement of Sec. 6695(d) was necessarily an essential element in a Sec. 7404(b) action. Id. Nothing in this analysis dictates that the burden is on the Government to prove willfulness. Rather, the analysis reveals that only conduct which is willful under Sec. 6695(d) will support an injunction under Sec. 7404(b). 30 Second, Nordbrock misinterprets our analogy to two other Revenue Code sections. We explained in Nordbrock I that our conclusion that Sec. 7404(b) incorporated the willfulness aspect of Sec. 6695(d) was comparable to the Fifth and Eighth Circuits' analyses of two other Revenue Code sections. Specifically, we noted that those courts incorporated the willfulness standard of Sec. 6700 into the injunction provision of Sec. 7408. The relevant similarity is that Sec. 7408 permits enjoining "conduct subject to penalty under section 6700,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the knowledge required by section 6700 [must] be present before enjoining conduct”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“willful interference with the proper administration”
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.