26 U.S.C. § 3301
Rate of tax
There is hereby imposed on every employer (as defined in section 3306(a)) for each calendar year an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to 6 percent of the total wages (as defined in section 3306(b)) paid by such employer during the calendar year with respect to employment (as defined in section 3306(c)).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 225
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1958–2025 · leading case: United States v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., 532 U.S. 200 (2001).
United States v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., 532 U.S. 200 (2001). “" And the FUTA tax provision, 26 U. S. C. § 3301 (1994 ed., Supp. IV), says the rate shall be "6.”
New York Tel. Co. v. New York State Dep't of Labor, 440 U.S. 519 (1979). “639 , as amended and recodified as the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, 26 U. S. C. § 3301 et seq., 42 U. S. C. § 501 et seq.”
City of Sacramento v. State of California, 785 P.2d 522 (Cal. 1990). “In current form, the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (hereafter FUTA) ( 26 U.S.C. § 3301 et seq.) assesses an annual tax upon the gross wages paid by covered private employers nationwide.”
United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982). “26 U. S. C. § 3301 . Both taxes are based on the wages paid to employees, and the recordkeeping and transmittal of funds are obligations of the employer.”
Env't Def. v. Duke Energy Corp., 549 U.S. 561 (2007). “, and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), 26 U.S.C. § 3301 et seq. Treasury Regulations made this value "includable in `wages' as defined in FICA and FUTA, even though excludable from `wages' under the substantially identical" statutory definition of "wages" for income-tax…”
California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393 (1982). “[4] See 26 U. S. C. § 3301 . [5] See 26 U. S. C. § 3302 (1976 ed.”
Alexander v. \Americans United\" Inc.", 416 U.S. 752 (1974). “[3] The effect of this change in status was to render respondent liable for unemployment (FUTA) taxes under Code § 3301, 26 U. S. C. § 3301 , [4] and to destroy its eligibility for taxdeductible contributions under § 170.”
Rowan Cos. v. United States, 452 U.S. 247 (1981). “, and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), 26 U. S. C. § 3301 et seq. The question is whether petitioner should have included in the computation of "wages," which is the base for taxation under FICA and FUTA, the value of meals and lodging provided for its own convenience to…”
Holy Cross Hosp. of Silver Spring, Inc. v. Maryland Emp. Sec. Admin., 421 A.2d 944 (Md. 1980). “A comprehensive review of 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 3301 3311 (Employment Security Amendments of 1970) and Md.”
South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367 (1984). “Although the organization's income remained tax exempt, "[t]he effect of this change in status was to render respondent liable for unemployment (FUTA) taxes under Code § 3301, 26 U. S. C. § 3301 , and to destroy its eligibility for tax deductible contributions under § 170.”
St. Martin Evangelical Lutheran Church v. South Dakota, 451 U.S. 772 (1981). “" [3] FUTA imposes an excise tax on "wages" paid by an "employer" in covered "employment," 26 U. S. C. § 3301 , as these terms are statutorily defined.”
Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (1994). “12 Despite certain similarities, the question whether federal labor law permits a State to grant or withhold unemployment insurance benefits from striking workers requires consideration of the policies underlying a distinct federal statute, Title IX of the Social Security Act,…”
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.