26 U.S.C. § 4421
Definitions
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases, 1959–2000 · leading case: Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 208 F.3d 871 (10th Cir. 2000).
Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 208 F.3d 871 (10th Cir. 2000). “§ 4421 , (2) it is not a “person” subject to federal wagering excise taxes, (3) the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) demonstrates Congress’ intent not to subject Indian gaming activities to federal wagering excise taxes, and (4) the self-government guarantee of the 1855…”
Knights of Columbus Council 3660 v. United States, 783 F.2d 69 (7th Cir. 1986). “§§ 4401 and 4411(b), by virtue of 26 U.S.C. § 4421 (2)(B). It also ruled that the government is not estopped to assess the taxes retroactively back to 1972.”
United States v. Sams, 219 F. Supp. 164 (W.D. Pa. 1963). “The argument turns upon the construction of 26 U.S.C.A. § 4421 defining the term “wager”.”
Little Six, Inc. & Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Cmty. v. United States, 229 F.3d 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “3d at 883 ; 26 U.S.C. § 4421 . For example, chapter 35 itself explicitly states that its definitions of wagers and lotteries apply only “for purposes of [chapter 35],” 26 U.”
David Bohn v. United States, 260 F.2d 773 (8th Cir. 1959). “” Section 4421, Internal Revenue Code of 1954, ( 26 U.S.C.A. § 4421 ) defines “wager” as follows: “(1) Wager.”
John Owen Tyler v. United States, 397 F.2d 565 (5th Cir. 1968). “* * * ” (2) 26 U.S.C. § 4421 “For purposes of this chapter— (1) Wager.”
Rochester Liederkranz, Inc. v. United States, 456 F.2d 152 (2d Cir. 1972). “” The controversy to be resolved here, however, stems not from the phraseology of either of those sections but from the language of section 4421, 26 U.S.C. § 4421 , which defines the term “wagers” as used in section 4401.”
Augusta Golf Ass'n, Inc. v. United States, 338 F. Supp. 272 (S.D. Ga. 1971). “The statute defines wager as “any wager with respect to a sports event or a contest placed with a person engaged in the business of accepting such wagers” as well as “any wager placed in a wagering pool with respect to a sports event or a contest, if such pool is conducted for…”
Tripodi v. Morgenthau, 213 F. Supp. 735 (S.D.N.Y. 1962). “1961), the complaint stated that Richard Roe was engaged in the business of accepting wagers as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 4421 and receiving wagers for or on behalf of a person liable for the tax on wagers imposed by 26 U.”
United States v. Bonnet, 247 F. Supp. 415 (E.D. La. 1965). “Count III charges that on or about January 22, 1965, in the Eastern District of Louisiana, the three named defendants did knowingly, wilfully and unlawfully engage in the business of accepting wagers as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 4421 (1) (a), without first having paid a special…”
United States v. DiPrimio, 209 F. Supp. 137 (W.D. Pa. 1962). “” The “house that Jack built” is completed by noting the inclusions and exclusions ordained by the definition given by 26 U.S.C. § 4421 . 6 We are particularly concerned in the case at bar with the express inclusion of the “numbers” racket; and with the express exclusion of “any…”
United States v. Kowal, 197 F. Supp. 401 (D.R.I. 1961). “This is a criminal information wherein the defendant is charged with having engaged in the business of accepting wagers as defined in 26 U.S.C.A. § 4421 without having paid the special occupational tax in violation of 26 U.”
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.