U.S. Code » Title 26 » Subtitle Subtitle D— Miscellaneous Excise Taxes › Chapter CHAPTER 35— TAXES ON WAGERING › Subchapter Subchapter C— Miscellaneous Provisions

26 U.S.C. § 4424

Disclosure of wagering tax information

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 26 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) General ruleExcept as otherwise provided in this section, neither the Secretary nor any other officer or employee of the Treasury Department may divulge or make known in any manner whatever to any person—(1) any original, copy, or abstract of any return, payment, or registration made pursuant to this chapter,(2) any record required for making any such return, payment, or registration, which the Secretary is permitted by the taxpayer to examine or which is produced pursuant to section 7602, or(3) any information come at by the exploitation of any such return, payment, registration, or record.(b) Permissible disclosureA disclosure otherwise prohibited by subsection (a) may be made in connection with the administration or civil or criminal enforcement of any tax imposed by this title. However, any document or information so disclosed may not be—(1) divulged or made known in any manner whatever by any officer or employee of the United States to any person except in connection with the administration or civil or criminal enforcement of this title, nor(2) used, directly or indirectly, in any criminal prosecution for any offense occurring before the date of enactment of this section.(c) Use of documents possessed by taxpayerExcept in connection with the administration or civil or criminal enforcement of any tax imposed by this title—(1) any stamp denoting payment of the special tax under this chapter,(2) any original, copy, or abstract possessed by a taxpayer of any return, payment, or registration made by such taxpayer pursuant to this chapter, and(3) any information come at by the exploitation of any such document,shall not be used against such taxpayer in any criminal proceeding.(d) Inspection by committees of Congress

Section 6103(f) shall apply with respect to any return, payment, or registration made pursuant to this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 93–499, § 3(c)(1), Oct. 29, 1974, 88 Stat. 1550; amended Pub. L. 94–455, title XII, § 1202(h)(6), title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1688, 1834.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1976—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1906(b)(13)(A), struck out “or his delegate” after “Secretary” wherever appearing.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1202(h)(6), substituted “6103(f)” for “6103(d)”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1976 Amendment

Amendment by section 1202(h)(6) of Pub. L. 94–455 effective Jan. 1, 1977, see section 1202(i) of Pub. L. 94–455, set out as a note under section 6103 of this title.

Effective Date

Section effective Dec. 1, 1974, and applicable only with respect to wagers placed on or after such date, see section 3(d)(1) of Pub. L. 93–499, set out as an Effective Date of 1974 Amendment note under section 4401 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases, 1976–2001 · leading case: United States v. Threadgill, 172 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Threadgill, 172 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 1999). · cites it 7× “The defendants assert that the federal agents’ use of those records abridged their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, and also violated the statutory requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 4424 (c). Walter Threadgill raised this argument in a motion to suppress filed in the…”
State v. Desirey, 909 S.W.2d 20 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “The defendant asserted that because Federal Agent Michael Thomas had used immunized federal wagering tax information to secure a search warrant in a federal prosecution [1] , a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4424 had occurred. [2] He argued that because this same information was…”
United States v. Robert Mick, 263 F.3d 553 (6th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “He claims that their admission violated 26 U.S.C. § 4424 , as well as his Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination.”
United States v. John M. Haydel, Jr., A/K/A \Ice Cream\" & \"Mugsy\"", 649 F.2d 1152 (5th Cir. 1981). · cites it 2× “The district judge, however, agreed that, under the fifth amendment, the records were inadmissible to prove violation of the gambling laws, see also 26 U.S.C. § 4424 (c), and issued an order suppressing their use in connection with such a trial.”
United States v. Heacock, 31 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 1994). · cites it 3× “To put Heae-ock’s argument in its best light, however, we will construe tMs claim as an appeal under 26 U.S.C. § 4424 , pursuant to which Congress granted taxpayers immuMty from prosecuto-rial use of such tax information, except “in connection with the .”
United States v. Harry M. Jeffers, Jr., A/K/A Hal Jeffers, 621 F.2d 221 (5th Cir. 1980). · cites it 3× “Finally, Congress enacted 26 U.S.C. § 4424 to “resolve any remaining doubts which may exist under the rationale of the Marchetti v.”
United States v. Busk, James W., 730 F.2d 129 (3rd Cir. 1984). · cites it 3× “See 26 U.S.C. § 4424 (1976); 26 U.S.C. § 6103 (1976 & Supp.”
United States v. Haydel, 486 F. Supp. 109 (M.D. La. 1980). · cites it 3× “The tax laws ( 26 U.S.C. § 4424 ) prohibit use of any tax return or gambling stamp in such a prosecution, but the government correctly argues that the tax laws do not per se forbid the use of records such as these which were independently discovered by the F.”
United States v. Ronald Appoloney, 761 F.2d 520 (9th Cir. 1985). “Under new 26 U.S.C. § 4424 , the IRS may not disclose information on such a return to other law enforcement officials, subject to criminal sanctions under 26 U.”
United States v. Alexander Stavros, 597 F.2d 108 (7th Cir. 1979). “The federal law does not compel compliance with the state law in issue, and any Fifth Amendment challenge should be directed to the state law, not the federal law.”
Sisson v. Triplett, 428 N.W.2d 565 (Minn. 1988). · cites it 2× “Congress cured the constitutional deficiencies contained in early wagering tax statutes by enacting 26 U.S.C. § 4424 (1982) subsequent to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Marchetti and Grosso .”
United States v. Walton Aucoin, William Condon & Steven Bertolino, 964 F.2d 1492 (5th Cir. 1992). “Asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and citing 26 U.S.C. § 4424 , Aucoin sought the suppression of all the seized materials.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
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.