How cited: Helvering v. Smith · Go Syfert

Helvering v. Smith (1937)

green · 72 citation events across 20 courts. Showing the 13 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1939 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
193919822026
Rule Authority · D.C. Cir.
See Swiren v. Comm’r, 183 F.2d 656, 658, 660 (7th Cir. 1950); Helvering v. Smith, 90 F.2d 590, 592 (2d Cir. 1937); Krist v. Comm’r, 12 T.C.M.
Rule Authority · 2d Cir.
See, e. g., United States v. Snow, 223 F.2d 103 (9 Cir. 1955); Helvering v. Smith, 90 F.2d 590 *849 (2 Cir. 1937); Tunnell v. United States, 259 F.2d 916 (3 Cir. 1958). 2 Since that part of the proceeds is received in lieu of the ordinary income, it is taxed as ordinary income, while that portion of the proceeds allocable to the partner’s capital interest in the partnership is treated as return of capital and, to the extent that it exceeds his investment, capital gain.
Rule Authority · Mass. Super. Ct.
The SJC continued, “Generally ‘the pluralistic [aggregate] notion of the firm prevails.’ Helvering v. Smith, 90 F.2d 590, 591 (2d Cir. (1937) (L.
green Ryder's Case (1961)
Rule Authority · Mass.
Helvering v. Smith, 90 F. 2d 590, 591 (2d Cir.) (L.
Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.
However, the persuasive opinion of informed scholars is that the Uniform Partnership Act does not transform a partnership into a separate legal or juristic entity [Helvering v. Smith, 2 Cir. (per Learned Hand, J.), 90 F.2d 590, 591 (1); Stilgenbaur v. United States, 9 Cir., 115 F.2d 283, 286 (3); 68 C.J.S.
green Veatch v. Black (1952)
Rule Authority · Mo.
Ed. 1421 ; Helvering v. Smith (C.C.A. 2d, 1937), 90 F. 2d 590, 592 [5]; Doyle v. Comm. of Int.
Cited · 2d Cir. · signal: see
See Helvering v. Smith, 90 F.2d 590, 591 (2d Cir. 1937) (L.
L. Hand, J.
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see
See Helvering v. Smith [2 Cir.], 90 F.2d 590 ; Ct.D. 1297, C.B.1938-1, 277; Doyle v. Commissioner [4 Cir.], 102 F. 2d 86 * * It is obvious that in the view of the Tax Court the facts of this case brought it within the proviso thus stated in the General Counsel’s Memorandum.
Cited (see also) · 2d Cir. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e. g., Helvering v. Smith, 2 Cir., 90 F.2d 590, 592 ; Levinson v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 154 F.2d 60 ; Rhodes’ Estate v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 131 F.2d 50 ; cf. Ansorge v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 147 F.2d 459, 461 .
Cited (see also) · Del. · signal: see also · 2 citations in this opinion
See also Rosin, supra note 25, at 420 (stating that, “[a]t common law, any change in partner composition resulted in dissolution of the old partnership and the creation of a new partnership to continue the business”). 29 See Helvering v. Smith, 90 F.2d 590, 591 (2d Cir. 1937) (Hand, J.) (noting that “[t]he Uniform Partnership Act . . . did not . . . make the firm an independent juristic entity,” and that, “it would be a palpable perversion to understand the [UPA] as creating…
Hand, J.
green Svetik v. Svetik (1988)
Cited · Pa. · signal: accord
Id., 357 Pa.Superior Ct. at 440, 516 A.2d at 63 ; Accord,, Plasterer v. Paine, 375 Pa.Super. 407 , 544 A.2d 985 (1987) Finally, the eminent jurist Learned Hand noted in Helvering v. Smith, 90 F.2d 590 (2d Cir., 1937), that the Uniform Partnership Act has not made partnerships independent juristic entities.
green Ely v. Commissioner (1960)
Cited (see also) · Tax Ct. · signal: see also
See also Helvering v. Smith, 90 F. 2d 590 (C.A. 2, 1937), reversing a Memorandum Opinion of this Court; B.
green Ekus v. Altmeyer (1943)
Cited · E.D.N.Y · signal: see
See Helvering v. Smith, 2 Cir., 90 F.2d 590 .