Higgins v. White’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. ““Under the present law the income of a trust is taxable to the grantor where, at any time during the taxable year, the grantor has power to revest in himself title to any part of the corpus of the trust, either alone or in conjunction with any person not a beneficiary of the trust. In an attempt to avoid this section, the practice has been adopted by some grantors of reserving power to revest title to the trust corpus in conjunction with a beneficiary having a very minor interest or of conferring the power to revest upon a person other than a beneficiary; in such cases the grantor has substantially the same control as if he alone had power to revoke the trust. While it is, of course, yet to be established that such device accomplishes its purpose, it is considered expedient to make it clear that in any of these cases the income shall be taxed to the grantor. The^ House bill made the grantor of a trust taxable upon the income of any part of the corpus of the trust, where the power to revest in the grantor title to such part of the corpus was in the grantor alone or was in the grantor in conjunction with any person not having a substantia] adverse interest in the disposition of such part of the corpus. Your committee has extended the scope of this provision so as to include, as well, the cases where the power to re-vest title to any part of the corpus is held, cither alone or in conjunction with the grantor, by a person not having a substantial adverse interest in such part of ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fulham v. Commissioner · Fulham v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

2. “such sums or sum out of the principal as they shall deem necessary or advisable for the comfort, maintenance, support, advancement, education or welfare”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Dravo