United States v. Elsass’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 102 · 26 U.S.C. § 1211 · 26 U.S.C. § 165 · 26 U.S.C. § 213 · 26 U.S.C. § 61 (Payment-in-Kind Tax Treatment Act of 1983) · 26 U.S.C. § 6694 · 26 U.S.C. § 6695 · 26 U.S.C. § 6700
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Interstate Transit Lines v. Commissioner · United States v. S S White Dental Mfg Co of Pennsylvania · Ivy Street Corporation v. Rc Alexander
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) who aids or assists in, procures, or advises with respect to, the preparation or presentation of any portion of a return, affidavit, claim or other document, (2) who knows (or has reason to believe) that such portion will be used in connection with any material matter arising under the internal revenue laws, and (3) who knows that such portion (if so used) would result in an understatement of the liability for tax of another person.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Collectively, the Defendants are in the business of helping taxpayers claim tax refunds through tax deductions for theft losses made allowable by § 165 of the Internal Revenue Code (“I.R.C.”), 26 U.S.C. § 165 . The Defendants’ business focuses on purported theft losses arising from investment scams such as the one famously orchestrated by Bernie Ma-doff. Their business model consists of researching and identifying investment scams that might give rise to § 165 theft-loss deductions, marketing their services to the victims of such scams, and assisting the victims in filing amended tax returns to obtain a tax refund based on the loss sustained through the scam. In exchange for these services, the Defendants are compensated by a percentage of the refund obtained.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The district courts of the United States at the instance of the United States shall have such jurisdiction to make and issue in civil actions, writs and orders of injunction, and of ne exeat república, orders appointing receivers, and such other orders and processes, and to render such judgments and decrees as may be necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws. The remedies hereby provided are in addition to and not exclusive of any and all other remedies of the United States in such courts or otherwise to enforce such laws.”
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.