Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Swank

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 18, 1981

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

53 entries 5 linked 48 unlinked
Show
  1. Parsons Vs. Smith US Supreme Court · Apr 06, 1959
  2. Helvering Vs. O'Donnell US Supreme Court · Mar 07, 1938
  3. Kirby Petroleum Co. Vs. Commissioner US Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1946
  4. Bingler Vs. Johnson US Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1969
  5. Palmer Vs. Bender US Supreme Court · Jan 09, 1933
  6. U.S. 571 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Swank
    Search
  7. U.S. 571 (1981) United States v. Swank
    Search
  8. U. S. 215 , and Paragon Jewel Coal Co. v. Commissioner
    Search
  9. Commissioner v. Southwest
    Search
  10. and argues that two cases -- Parsons v. Smith
    Search
  11. In Helvering v. Bankline
    Search
  12. b)(4), 47 Stat. 203, this Court, in Helvering v. Bankline
    Search
  13. test in Palmer v. Bender
    Search
  14. Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens
    Search
  15. Helvering v. Bankline
    Search
  16. permit an owner to recoup his capital investment in the minerals as the resources are being exhausted. Commissioner v. Southwest
    Search
  17. United States v. Cannelton
    Search
  18. theory underlying the depletion allowance. In Palmer v. Bender
    Search
  19. must be given effect if there is a reasonable basis for the interpretation given by the Commissioner. See Fulman v. United
    Search
  20. Commissioner v. South
    Search
  21. of the same regulation have been expressly accepted and applied by the Court. See, e.g., Paragon Jewel Coal Co. v. Commissioner
    Search
  22. allowance. The Service's interpretation of its own regulation is entitled to deference. See Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin
    Search
  23. Bowles v. Seminole
    Search
  24. Fribourg Navigation Co. v. Commissioner
    Search
  25. involves the application of terms expressly used in the regulation. Indeed, in National Muffler Dealers Assn. v. United
    Search
  26. whether an economic interest exists is also reasonable in light of our prior cases. In this regard, Parsons v. Smith
    Search
  27. U. S. 215 (1959), and Paragon Jewel Coal Co. v. Commissioner
    Search
  28. Whitmer v. Commissioner
    Search
  29. McCall v. Commissioner
    Search
  30. United States v. Stallard
    Search
  31. Weaver v. Commissioner
    Search
  32. Mullins v. Commissioner
    Search
  33. Bolling v. Commissioner
    Search
  34. T.C. 754 (1962). See also Costantino v. Commissioner
    Search
  35. Commissioner v. Mammoth
    Search
  36. Usibelli v. Commissioner
    Search
  37. Holbrook v. Commissioner
    Search
  38. T.C. 415, 418-421 (1975). To be sure, there is authority to the contrary. See Winters Coal Co. v. Commissioner
    Search
  39. Bakertown Coal Co. v. United
    Search
  40. were necessary to mine the coal, and, given this investment, a depletion allowance was justified. See Commissioner v. Southwest
    Search
  41. Anderson v. Helvering
    Search
  42. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Swank
    Search
  43. and Paragon Jewel Coal Co. v. Commissioner
    Search
  44. In Palmer v. Bender
    Search
  45. the Commissioner. See Fulman v. United
    Search
  46. Paragon Jewel Coal Co. v. Commissioner
    Search
  47. See Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin
    Search
  48. Fribourg Navigation Co. v. Commissioner
    Search
  49. National Muffler Dealers Assn. v. United
    Search
  50. Whitmer v. Commissioner
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial