U.S. Code » Title 26 » Subtitle Subtitle F— Procedure and Administration › Chapter CHAPTER 61— INFORMATION AND RETURNS › Subchapter Subchapter A— Returns and Records › Part PART III— INFORMATION RETURNS › Subpart Subpart B— Information Concerning Transactions With Other Persons

26 U.S.C. § 6050

Repealed. Pub. L. 96–167, § 5(a), Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1276]

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

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2021 · leading case: UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Lee NELSON, Defendant-Appellant, 66 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Lee NELSON, Defendant-Appellant, 66 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1995). · cites it 3× “The transaction reporting requirement alleged to have been violated in this case was 26 U.S.C. § 6050 (I)(a) (1990), which requires any person engaged in business “who, in the course of such .”
United States v. David Richeson, United States of Am. v. Mahmood Ul-Hassan, 825 F.2d 17 (4th Cir. 1987). “494 , 685 (1984); 26 U.S.C.A. § 6050 (West Supp. 1987).”
State of New York v. Mayorkas (S.D.N.Y. 2021). “” But the court there considered the potential tension between the privilege and a federal statute, 26 U.S.C. § 6050 -I, not amorphous concerns about government transparency of the sort involved here.”
— 26 U.S.C. § 6050(I)(f) — 1 case
UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Lee NELSON, Defendant-Appellant, 66 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1995). “The transaction reporting requirement alleged to have been violated in this case was 26 U.S.C. § 6050 (I)(a) (1990), which requires any person engaged in business “who, in the course of such .”
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.