26 U.S.C. § 4422
Applicability of Federal and State laws
The payment of any tax imposed by this chapter with respect to any activity shall not exempt any person from any penalty provided by a law of the United States or of any State for engaging in the same activity, nor shall the payment of any such tax prohibit any State from placing a tax on the same activity for State or other purposes.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1956–1994 · leading case: Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 (1968).
Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 (1968). “26 U. S. C. § 4422 . II. The issue before us is not whether the United States may tax activities which a State or Congress has declared unlawful.”
United States v. Heacock, 31 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 1994). “” 26 U.S.C. § 4422 . Furthermore, 18 U.S.C.”
State v. Mills, 86 So. 2d 895 (La. 1956). “There is nothing in the law under which these documents were filed that carries any implication that compliance will be accompanied by an immunity from prosecution. Moreover, the federal statute specifically provides that the payment of any tax imposed thereby shall not be held…”
Silbert v. United States, 282 F. Supp. 635 (D. Maryland 1968). “” 26 U.S.C. § 4422 . 88 S.Ct. at 700. Mr. Justice Harlan, in Marchetti , mentioned the provisions of 18 U.”
United States v. 1978 Cadillac El Dorado 2-Door Coupe, Red in Color with White Vinyl Top, Motor No. 6L4758Q134633, Utah License No. VHK388, 489 F. Supp. 532 (D. Utah 1980). “…Cir. 1978). . Nocita v. U. S., 258 F.2d 199 (9th Cir. 1958). . Interbartolo v. U. S., 303 F.2d 34 (1st Cir. 1962). . 26 U.S.C. § 4422 . . 18 U.S.C. § 1955 .”
Perry v. Commonwealth, 156 S.E.2d 566 (Va. 1967). “The federal law specifically provides that payment of any tax imposed under the federal gambling tax statutes does not exempt any person from penalty or punishment of ofFenses provided by the law of any State.”
United States v. Shakir Wadi Alkhafaji, 754 F.2d 641 (6th Cir. 1985). “26 U.S.C. § 4422 . In addressing the fifth amendment claim posited by Marchetti, the Supreme Court initially examined the facial implications of Form 11-C.”
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.