26 U.S.C. § 5180

Signs

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 26 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Requirements

Every person engaged in distilled spirits operations shall place and keep conspicuously on the outside of his place of business a sign showing the name of such person and denoting the business, or businesses, in which engaged. The sign required by this subsection shall be in such form and contain such information as the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe.

(b) Penalty

For penalty and forfeiture relating to failure to post sign or improperly posting such sign, see section 5681.

(Added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, § 201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1355; amended Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834; Pub. L. 96–39, title VIII, § 807(a)(19), July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 283.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 5180, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 632, consisted of provisions similar to those comprising this section, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in prior section 5274, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 651, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

Amendments

1979—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 96–39 substituted “distilled spirits operation” for “distilling, bonded warehousing, rectifying, or bottling of distilled spirits”.

1976—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94–455 struck out “or his delegate” after “Secretary”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1979 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–39 effective Jan. 1, 1980, see section 810 of Pub. L. 96–39, set out as a note under section 5001 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases, 1961–1971 · leading case: United States v. Gainey, 380 U.S. 63 (1965).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Gainey, 380 U.S. 63 (1965). · cites it 3× “A fourth count, charging that the defendants, in violation of 26 U. S. C. § 5180 (1958 ed.), worked in a distillery on which no sign was placed showing the name of the person engaged in the distilling, resulted in a directed verdict of acquittal.”

United States v. Roy Whitehead, 424 F.2d 446 (6th Cir. 1970). · cites it 3× “§§ 5205 (a) (2) and 5604(a) (1); on count 5 for possessing an unregistered still in violation of 26 U.S.C.”

Robert F. O'Neal v. United States, 411 F.2d 131 (5th Cir. 1969). “§ 5602; in Count 4 with working in a distillery for the production of spirits upon which no sign was placed and kept, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5180 and 5601(a). Jointly indicted with appellant were two others, Padgett and Cooper.”

Ralph Dupoint v. United States, 388 F.2d 39 (5th Cir. 1968). “§§ 5179 (a), 5601(a), and of working at such a place where the required signs had not been posted, 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 5180 , 5681(c). He was acquitted of counts charging the carrying on of the business of a distiller without giving bond and with intent to defraud the United States…”

Lee Gilliland, Wilmon Roy Green & Melvin Franklin Pearce v. United States, 385 F.2d 912 (5th Cir. 1967). “§ 5602 ; and working at a still where no sign was placed and kept, 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 5180 , 5681(c). The sole issue raised by this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions.”

Jacob Harper v. United States, 383 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1967). “PER CURIAM: Appellant was convicted of violating 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 5180 and 5681(c), and 26 U.”

Sam Tate Davis, John David Davis & Bobby Howard Phillips v. United States, 385 F.2d 919 (5th Cir. 1967). “§ 5602 ; Count 5 did not include the appellants; Count 6, delivering raw materials to an unregistered distillery, 26 U.S.C. § 5180 and § 5681 (c); Count 7, possession of distilled spirits in unstamped containers, 26 U.”

Archie Lee Reynolds v. United States, 289 F.2d 698 (10th Cir. 1961). “The sign required by 26 U.S.C. § 5180 to indicate the business of a distiller was not posted.”

United States v. LaBerge, 267 F. Supp. 686 (D. Maryland 1967). “The Government contends that there was absence of a sign as prescribed by 26 U.S.C. § 5180 and 26 C.F.R. § 201.235 ; and that therefore the Government has affirmatively shown lack of registration (count one), lack of bond (count two), and illegal manufacture (count three), since…”

United States v. Augustus Hunt, 419 F.2d 1 (3rd Cir. 1970). “6 This conclusion applies with equal force to the bonding and posting violations. Under 26 U.S.C. § 5173 and even though he has registered, the registrant may not begin operations without first giving a bond.”

United States v. Marion Lee Ivey, 310 F.2d 227 (4th Cir. 1962). “The remaining counts charged, in this order, that Ivey had worked at a distillery on which no sign had been placed showing it to be a registered distillery, 26 U.S.C. § 5180 ; that he had made, and caused to be made, certain mash fit for distillation, 26 U.”

United States v. Edward Johnson & Lonnie Eugene Johnson, 434 F.2d 816 (6th Cir. 1970). “§§ 5173 and 5601(a) (4) (1964); (3) working at an unlawful still in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5180 (a) and 5681(e) (1964); (4) making and fermenting mash for the production of distilled spirits in violation of 26 U.”

Show all 19 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.