Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 97 F.2d 658 - Tate v. Commissioner

Tate v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

97 F.2d 658 · 1938

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
January 1965
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1965

9 federal appellate · 2 district ·

601938194019501960decided

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. § 112 · 26 U.S.C. § 115

Relies on Helvering v. Taylor · Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities Commission · Palmer v. Commissioner · Wiese v. Commissioner · Helvering v. Canfield

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

  1. “"Whether a dividend is a `distribution in liquidation' is a question of fact, and depends upon the intent of the directors of the corporation."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"Obviously this dividend was not a complete liquidation of the corporation. It could be a partial liquidation only if one of a series of distributions in complete redemption of stock. The only evidence in the record that this distribution was of such a nature is (1) the designation given it by the board of directors and (2) the unusual size of the dividend. * * * What a corporation may call a distribution of profits or surplus is not necessarily controlling." (Emphasis added.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"Nevertheless, in view of all of the circumstances, we can not say as a matter of law that the Board of Tax Appeals should have found that the 1928 dividend was a distribution in liquidation."”
    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.