26 U.S.C. § 1051
Repealed. Pub. L. 113–295, div. A, title II, § 221(a)(78), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 4049]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 1928–2019 · leading case: Comm'r v. Angier Corp., 50 F.2d 887 (1st Cir. 1931).
Comm'r v. Angier Corp., 50 F.2d 887 (1st Cir. 1931). “27 of the Revenue Act of 1926 (26 USCA §§ 1051, 1063). This assessment was later reduced to $11,336.”
Veeder v. Comm'r, 36 F.2d 342 (7th Cir. 1929). “On February 3, 1926, respondent, acting under the provisions of section 274 (d) of the 1924 act (26 USCA § 1051, note), made a “jeopardy’ (so-called) assessment of a deficiency amounting to $832.”
Am. Equitable Assur. Co. of New York v. Helvering, 68 F.2d 46 (2d Cir. 1933). “Section 279 (a) of the Revenue Act 1926 (26 USCA § 1051 (a) authorized the Commissioner, whenever he believed the assessment or collection of a deficiency would be jeopardized by delay, to assess such deficiency immediately.”
Lewis-Hall Iron Works v. Blair, 23 F.2d 972 (D.C. Cir. 1928). “The record discloses by stipulation that on June 20, 1924, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue made a jeopardy assessment, under section 274 (d) of the Revenue Act of 1924 (26 USCA § 1051; Comp, St. § 6336%zz [1]), on the appellant taxpayer for additional income and excess…”
Wis. Province Jesus v. Cassem, 373 F. Supp. 3d 378 (D. Conn. 2019). “64, at 12-23]. Defendants argue that RFRA does not apply to this case because it is between private parties.”
Cont'l Prods. Co. v. Comm'r of Int. Rev., 66 F.2d 434 (1st Cir. 1933). “, under certain circumstances when, as stated in the statute, “the commissioner believes that the assessment or collection of a deficiency will be jeopardized by delay,” he is authorized to assess and collect it in a summary manner which does not give the taxpayer a right to be…”
Hoosac Mills Corp. v. Comm'r, 75 F.2d 462 (1st Cir. 1935). “The statute provided, in section 274 (a), 26 USCA § 1048, that the Commissioner should be prohibited from assessing or collecting any tax in case of an appeal until the decision of the Board of Tax Appeal became final, though he could still make a jeopardy assessment under…”
Daniel Reeves, Inc. v. Anderson, 43 F.2d 679 (2d Cir. 1930). “Section 279 of the Revenue Act of 1924 (26 USCA § 1063 note) did indeed provide for a compulsory stay of collection, but only in the case of jeopardy assessments levied under section 274 (d) of that act (26 USCA § 1051 note). Aside from the limited scope of this section, it did…”
Mut. Lumber Co. v. Poe, 44 F.2d 922 (9th Cir. 1930). “59 (26 USCA § 1051); Veeder v. Commissioner of In *925 ternal Revenue (C.”
Cont'l Prods. Co. v. Comm'r, 20 B.T.A. 818 (B.T.A. 1930). “While there are important differences between the procedure under section 274 (a) and (b) (26 USCA §§ 1048, note, 1049, note), on the one hand, and section 274 (d) (26 USCA § 1051, note,) on the other, such differences are matters of procedure not affecting the amount or justice…”
Miami Valley Fruit Co. v. United States, 45 F.2d 303 (5th Cir. 1930). “It is true that under section 274 (a), 26 USCA § 1048 note, when a deficiency is discovered, a notiee must generally be sent by registered mail sixty days before an assessment can be made, but by section 274(d), 26 USCA § 1051 note, an assessment may be made without notiee when…”
Capitol Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Burnet, 63 F.2d 462 (D.C. Cir. 1933). “…provided in section 274, subdivision (d) or (£) (26 USCA §§ 1048b, 1048d), or in sections 279, 282, or 1001 (26 USCA §§ 1051, 1063, 1071, and § 1224 and note), no assessment of a deficiency and no distraint or proceeding in court for collection shall be made, begun, or…”
26 U.S.C. § 1051(f): 1 case
Trinacia Real Est. Co. v. Clarke, 34 F.2d 325 (N.D.N.Y. 1929).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.