Weiser Ml v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
959 F.2d 146 · 1992
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Robin Dubner v. City and County of San Francisco (2001), Amadeo v. Principal Mutual Life Insurance (2002)
25 federal appellate · 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
Relies on In re Disbarment of Johnson · Gozlon-Peretz v. United States · Kruso v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. · Jewel Companies v. Pay Less Drug Stores Northwest, Inc. · First Chicago Corp. 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]ur review is not limited to a consideration of the grounds upon which the district court decided the issues”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Items of tax preference are not taxed, they are simply disallowed as deductions from adjusted gross income (AGI) under the AMT [calculation]. Whether they do or do not generate a tax benefit under the regular code provisions is immaterial in this respect. Congress has made a policy decision that taxpayers cannot exclude these items from adjusted gross income when the AMT is calculated. That decision, while it may result in additional tax liability, does not mean that the disallowed deductions are taxed. Rather, income is taxed without a deduction for the preference items. In other words, unlike the earlier add-on system, the tax is not being calculated on some phantom deduction which had no effect in the real world. It is simply being measured by the taxpayers income without taking certain deductions into account.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 55 set forth a hermetic structure for calculating the AMT, and thus § 58(h) could not be applied to alter the scheme. Since § 55 calculated the taxpayer’s AMT liability by starting with Adjusted Gross Income the district court found that AMT provided taxpayers with a ‘built-in tax benefit rule.’”
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.