26 U.S.C. § 5609

Destruction of unregistered stills, distilling apparatus, equipment, and materials

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

(a) General

In the case of seizure elsewhere than on premises qualified under this chapter of any unregistered still, distilling or fermenting equipment or apparatus, or distilling or fermenting material, for any offense involving forfeiture of the same, where it shall be impracticable to remove the same to a place of safe storage from the place where seized, the seizing officer is authorized to destroy the same. In the case of seizure, other than on premises qualified under this chapter or in transit thereto or therefrom, of any distilled spirits on which the tax has not been paid or determined, for any offense involving forfeiture of the same, the seizing officer is authorized to destroy the distilled spirits forthwith. Any destruction under this subsection shall be in the presence of at least one credible witness. The seizing officer shall make such report of said seizure and destruction and take such samples as the Secretary may require.

(b) ClaimsWithin 1 year after destruction made pursuant to subsection (a) the owner of, including any person having an interest in, the property so destroyed may make application to the Secretary for reimbursement of the value of such property. If the claimant establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary that—(1) such property had not been used in violation of law; or(2) any unlawful use of such property had been without his consent or knowledge,the Secretary shall make an allowance to such claimant not exceeding the value of the property destroyed.(Added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, § 201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1403; amended Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 5609, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 685, related to penalty in connection to return of materials used in the manufacture of distilled spirits, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859. See section 5605 of this title.

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in prior section 5623, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 687, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

Amendments

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

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1960–1969 · leading case: United States v. Frank Romano, John Ottiano, Edward Romano & Antonio Vellucci, 330 F.2d 566 (2d Cir. 1964).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Frank Romano, John Ottiano, Edward Romano & Antonio Vellucci, 330 F.2d 566 (2d Cir. 1964). “The destruction of illegal stills and their appurtenances is authorized by 26 U.S.C.A. § 5609 in those cases where “it is impracticable to remove the still and distilling material to a place of safe storage from the place where seized.”

Charley Calvin Chandler v. United States, 318 F.2d 356 (10th Cir. 1963). “” It would appear that the witness was referring to Title 26 U.S.C. § 5609 (a), which applies to the destruction of seized distilled spirits.”

United States v. Romano, 203 F. Supp. 27 (D. Conn. 1962). “Considering first the destruction of the still and appurtenances, the destruction of such items is authorized by 26 U.S. C.A. § 5609, which provides: “In the case of seizure elsewhere than on premises qualified under this chapter of any unregistered still, distilling or…”

Corley G. Newman v. United States, 277 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1960). “” Section 5609 of said Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 5609 , prescribes the penalty as follows : “Any person who willfully violates any provision of section 5213 (a), or of any rules or regulations issued thereunder, and any officer, director, or agent of any such person…”

United States v. Jenkins, 319 F. Supp. 196 (E.D. Tenn. 1969). “26 U.S.C. §§ 5609 , 5610, 5615, 7302. . The Court does not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the items ordered returned were intended for use in violating the federal internal revenue laws.”

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.