Munford, Inc. v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
849 F.2d 1398 · 1988
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. (1992), Perez v. Miami-Dade County (2002)
14 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 38 · 26 U.S.C. § 48
Relies on Piggly Wiggly Southern, Inc. v. Commissioner · Illinois Cereal Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner · Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. United States · Consolidated Freightways, Inc. v. Commissioner · Catron 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) In general — Except as provided in this subsection, the term ‘section 38 property’ means— (A) tangible personal property (other than an air conditioning or hearing unit), or (B) other tangible property (not including a building and its structural components) but only if such property— (i) is used as a integral part of manufacturing, production, or extraction or of furnishing transportation, communications, electrical energy, gas, water, or sewage disposal services....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) Is the property capable of being moved, and has it in fact been moved?.... (2) Is the property designed or constructed to remain permanently in place?.... (3) Are there circumstances which tend to show the expected or intended length of affixation, i.e., are there circumstances which show that the property may or will have to be moved?.... (4) How substantial a job is removal of the property and how time-consuming is it? Is it ‘readily removable’?.... (5) How much damage will the property sustain upon its removal?.... (6) What is the manner of affixation of the property to the land?....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“buildings” within the meaning of section 48(a)(1)(B). The loading docks and inspection lanes were permanent structures used to expedite freight and to inspect the long-haul vehicles. In a footnote to its discussion of the “function” test, this Court stated: We consider the amount of human activity which occurs within the structure an important consideration under § 48(a)(1)(B) since”
2 later decisions 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.