Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 935 F.2d 1440 - United States v. Schmidt

United States v. Schmidt’s Empirical Analysis

935 F.2d 1440 · 1991

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
1
states following
October 2011
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently October 2011 · most notably United States v. Mills (1993), United States v. Edwards (1999)

36 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

430199120002010decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 1512 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 26 U.S.C. § 119 · 26 U.S.C. § 641 · 26 U.S.C. § 7201 · 26 U.S.C. § 7203 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206

Relies on Glasser v. United States · Bibby v. United States · Wayte v. United States · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States

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

  1. “Conspiracy to Impair, Impede or Defeat Tax,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[h]ere again, appellants have sought to divert attention away from the well-set- tied law of what constitutes tax evasion and into the misty realm of UBOs and deductions against personal income. By properly focusing on pertinent tenets of tax law — that earned income is taxable to those who earn it and that dominion and control over property, rather than documentary title, determines to whom the income from that property is taxable — one discovers a number of cases. See Holman v. Holman [United States ], 728 F.2d 462 (10th Cir.1984) (assignment of income doctrine and grantor trust provisions applied to hold trusts mere shams for tax avoidance purposes); Hanson v. Commissioner, 696 F.2d 1232 (9th Cir.1983) (same); Schulz v. Commissioner, 686 F.2d 490 (7th Cir.1982) (same); Vnuk v. Commissioner, 621 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir.1980) (same); Wesenberg v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 1005 , 1978 WL 3411 (1978) (same); Zmuda v. Commissioner, 731 F.2d 1417 (9th Cir. 1984) (investors, as trustees, had complete control over the income-producing property of the trusts). Hence, contentions of vagueness and debatability simply do not hold up.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““[t]he choice before us is thus between punishing a crime whose gravity is represented by the actual loss of tax revenue to the IRS and one whose gravity is represented by the full extent of participation in a tax evasion scheme regardless of the tax consequences to the government. A fair reading of the Section 2T1.3(a) supports only the former ____ In our view, then, the understated gross income here is represented only by non-legitimate deductions and any income ‘distributed’ offshore____ We remand the case for a recalculation of all of the appellants’ base offense levels consistent with our view of the actual tax loss sustained by the government ...” (last emphasis in original) (Schmidt, supra, at p. 1451 ) (emphasis supplied).”
    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.