26 U.S.C. § 3507
Repealed. Pub. L. 111–226, title II, § 219(a)(1), Aug. 10, 2010, 124 Stat. 2403]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1985–2007 · leading case: Daniel G. Hamm v. Tomeka Scott James, 406 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2005).
Daniel G. Hamm v. Tomeka Scott James, 406 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2005). “The Trustee’s argument that Congress prefers the ratable-monthly-credit option is based on the following language in 26 U.S.C. § 3507 : (f) Internal Revenue Service notification.”
In Re Donnell, 357 B.R. 386 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2006). “26 U.S.C. § 3507 . Thus, at first blush, the Burgess predicate appears to be satisfied.”
United States v. Arthur Dale Senty-Haugen, 449 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2006). “See 26 U.S.C. § 3507 . Claiming use of this alternative, Senty-Haugen's businesses submitted 23 Forms 941 claiming a total of $130,000 in refunds for EITC advances the businesses never made to the fictitious employees.”
Baer v. Montgomery (In Re Montgomery), 219 B.R. 913 (10th Cir. BAP 1998). “…employer, and (4) states whether or not the employee’s spouse has an earned income eligibility certificate in effect. 26 U.S.C. § 3507 (1994).”
In Re Schwarz, 314 B.R. 433 (Bankr. D. Neb. 2004). “Another significant distinction between the EIC and the CTC is the accrual date of the credit.”
Sorenson v. Sec'y of the Treasury of the United States, 752 F.2d 1433 (9th Cir. 1985). “See 26 U.S.C. § 3507 (1982). Thus, if the employee does not claim it in this fashion, it could be viewed that he has “overpaid” it, in the same sense that in not claiming all his exemptions he has “overpaid” his withholding tax.”
Brown v. Commonwealth Nat. Life Ins. Co., Inc., 875 F. Supp. 800 (M.D. Ala. 1995). “Specifically, the defendant asserts that the claims made by the plaintiff arise under 26 U.S.C. § 3507 and are preempted by 29 U.”
In re: Diann Colbert v. (6th Cir. BAP 2007). “See 26 U.S.C. § 3507 . For a person with two qualifying children and annual earned income less than $8,890, such as the Debtor, the credit is equal to forty percent of her earned income.”
United States v. Arthur Senty-Haugen (8th Cir. 2006). “Alternatively, the Internal Revenue Code permits employers to advance their employees the funds to be credited and then apply the advanced funds against the employers’ tax liability.”
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.