26 U.S.C. § 1346
Repealed. Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, § 1901(a)(148), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1788]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1962–2025 · leading case: Cohen v. United States, 650 F.3d 717 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
Cohen v. United States, 650 F.3d 717 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “[7] Courts have also been more reluctant to find a specific pre-enforcement challenge ripe where (as here) a statute ( 26 U.S.C. §§ 1346 , 7422) creates a separate process for review.”
Johnson v. Sawyer, 640 F. Supp. 1126 (S.D. Tex. 1986). “district courts exclusive jurisdiction over such tort claims, 26 U.S.C. § 1346 (b), and then restricting the scope of that jurisdiction, see 26 U.”
Roxanne Bell v. United States, 355 F.3d 387 (6th Cir. 2004). “The court also rejected Roxanne Bell’s argument that there was “reasonable cause” for Bell’s failure to pay the taxes, such that he should be excused from his liability.”
Szanto v. Internal Revenue Serv. (In re Szanto), 574 B.R. 862 (Bankr. D. Or. 2017). “Although 26 U.S.C. § 1346 (a) provides the district court with jurisdiction to hear claims against the United States for recovery of taxes alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, under 26 U.”
Magnone v. United States, 733 F. Supp. 613 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). “The Court, after examining 26 U.S.C. § 1346 and a plethora of tax cases, concluded that the jurisdictional requirement of full — and not partial — payment of all sums is a fundamental assumption of our taxation system.”
Harper Int'l Corp. v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 66 (Fed. Cl. 2015). “Motion to Dismiss, RCFC 12(b)(1); 26 U.S.C. § 1346 (United States as defendant); 26 U.”
William F. & Gwendolyn Wright v. United States, 482 F.2d 600 (8th Cir. 1973). “The plaintiffs commenced this action in the District Court on December 28, 1967, under 26 U.S.C. § 1346 (a)(1) to recover income taxes erroneously assessed and collected by the Commissioner.”
Cohen v. United States, 578 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “Courts have also been more reluctant to find a specific pre-enforcement challenge ripe where (as here) a statute ( 26 U.S.C. §§ 1346 , 7422) creates a separate process for review.”
Bledsoe v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 398 F. Supp. 315 (E.D. Pa. 1975). “This is an action in which relief is sought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 1346 (b), 2671 et seq. The cause of action arises from the sale of a property in Philadelphia by the named defendant to the parent-plaintiffs, on or about February 23, 1972.”
Schell v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 159 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “See 26 U.S.C. § 1346 (a); see also Flora v. United States, 362 U.”
Georgeff v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 598 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “Because the plaintiffs presented the court with matters outside the pleadings (the contents of the 1997 tax return), which were not excluded, and upon which the court and the parties relied, the defendant’s motion is more properly treated as a motion for summary judgment…”
First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of St. Joseph v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 477 (W.D. Mo. 1968). “Joseph, Missouri, filed this suit against the United States, as authorized by the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Title 26 U.S.C. § 1346 as amended, to recover the income taxes which it alleged were erroneously assessed and collected by the defendant on the amounts paid to the…”
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.