Phillips v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Wheeler v. Comm'r (2006), Cabirac v. Comm'r (2003)
11 federal appellate · 1 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. § 6013 · 26 U.S.C. § 6212 · 26 U.S.C. § 7430 · 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 28 U.S.C. § 294
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · United States v. Turkette · American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson · Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc. · Badaracco 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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he plain words of the statute clearly extend the § 6013(b) limitations only to taxpayers who have previously filed returns. Section 6013 is written in the form of a general rule and a series of specific exceptions to that rule. The general rule is laid out in § 6013(a): that a husband and wife may choose to file either a separate or a joint tax return. The statute then imposes two sets of limitations on that right. The first set of limitations, contained in section (a), applies generally to all taxpayers. It is clear and uneontested that none of those limitations applies in the case at bar. The second set of limitations, those contained in section (b), applies only to a smaller subset of taxpayers: those filing, as the section heading states, a “[j]oint return after filing separate return.” 26 U.S.C. § 6013 (b). Congress could readily have extended the § 6013(b) limitations to taxpayers who had not filed any returns at all and were then served with a notice of deficiency, but it is clear from the statute’s wording that it did not.”
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.