Bokum II v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
13 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 165 later decisions — most recently October 2019 · most notably Cheshire v. Commissioner (2000), Jonson v. Comm'r (2002)
13 federal appellate ·
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 Bonner v. City of Prichard · Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad · Sanders v. United States · Stevens v. Commissioner · Loftin & Woodard, Inc. 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 165 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) a joint return has been made under this section for a taxable year, (B) on such return there is a substantial understatement of tax attributable to grossly erroneous items of one spouse, (C) the other spouse establishes that in signing the return he or she did not know, and had no reason to know, that there was such substantial understatement, and (D) taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it is inequitable to hold the other spouse liable for the deficiency in tax for such taxable year attributable to such substantial understatement, then the other spouse shall be relieved of liability for tax (including interest, penalties, and other amounts) for such taxable year to the extent such liability is attributable to such substantial understatement.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“[u]nder procedures prescribed by the Secretary”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“; (2) whether petitioner knew or had reason to know of the substantial understatement; and (3) considering all of the facts and circumstances, whether it would be inequitable to hold petitioner liable for the tax. 1. Grossly Erroneous Items For purposes of section 6013(e) , a deduction is grossly erroneous if there is no basis in fact or law for the deduction. Sec. 6013(e)(2)(B) .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.