Conners v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate ·

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) General rule. — If— (1) a sale of real property gives rise to indebtedness to the seller which is secured by the real property sold, and (2) the seller of such property reacquires such property in partial or full satisfaction of such indebtedness, then, except as provided in subsections (b) and (d), no gain or loss shall result to the seller from such reacquisition, and no debt shall become worthless or partially worthless as a result of such reacquisition. (b) Amount of gain resulting.— (1) In general. — In the case of a reacquisition of real property to which subsection (a) applies, gain shall result from such reacquisition to the extent that— (A) the amount of money and the fair market value of other property-(other than obligations of the purchaser) received, prior to such reacquisition, with respect to the sale of such property, exceeds (B) the amount of the gain on the sale of such property returned as in come for periods prior to such reacquisition.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. DeBough v. Shulman

2. “because (1) the taxpayer was actually in no better position than he was before he made the sale; (2) valuation at the time of repossession was difficult; (3) to tax the initial seller on gain at the time of repossession was to tax him on gain not yet realized; and (4) because the taxpayer had not received a monetary return with respect to the property, funds to pay the taxes may be unavailable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. DeBough v. Shulman

3. “repossession of improved property in satisfaction of an obligation resulting from the sale of the same property prior to improvements is entitled to nonrecognition treatment under section 1038.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hovhannissian v. Commissioner