Knetsch v. United States
1960 United States Supreme Court case
Knetsch v. United States, 364 U.S. 361 (1960), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning taxation law.
The taxpayer was a saver who was convinced to buy a deferred annuity because the inside buildup on such policies is tax-deferred. However, he wanted to claim a deduction on the money he borrowed that he used to buy the annuity. The IRS won and the taxpayer was denied the deduction. An understanding of the economics would immediately reveal that the only reason the transaction had any chance of making sense for the taxpayer was the asymmetric way the-then current tax code allowed a current deduction on the loan liability at the same time allowed tax deferral on the purchased asset. Success would have legitimated tax arbitrage.
See also
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 364
Further reading
Shaviro, Daniel N. (2002). "The Story of Knetsch: Judicial Doctrines Combating Tax Avoidance". In Caron, Paul L. (ed.).
The public source identifies “Knetsch v. United States” as 1960 United States Supreme Court case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Knetsch, United and States.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Knetsch v. United States”, the useful work is to connect “1960 United States Supreme Court case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q6421997. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1960 and 2002.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Knetsch v. United States”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Knetsch v. United States primary sources, Knetsch v. United States archive and Knetsch research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Knetsch v. United States”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Knetsch v. United States” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.