26 U.S.C. § 6155

Payment on notice and demand

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

(a) General rule

Upon receipt of notice and demand from the Secretary, there shall be paid at the place and time stated in such notice the amount of any tax (including any interest, additional amounts, additions to tax, and assessable penalties) stated in such notice and demand.

(b) Cross references(1) For restrictions on assessment and collection of deficiency assessments of taxes subject to the jurisdiction of the Tax Court, see sections 6212 and 6213.(2) For provisions relating to assessment of claims allowed in a receivership proceeding, see section 6873.(3) For provisions relating to jeopardy assessments, see subchapter A of chapter 70.(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 760; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834; Pub. L. 96–589, § 6(i)(7), Dec. 24, 1980, 94 Stat. 3410.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1980—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 96–589 struck out reference to a bankruptcy proceeding.

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

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1980 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–589 effective Oct. 1, 1979, but not applicable to proceedings under Title 11, Bankruptcy, commenced before Oct. 1, 1979, see section 7(e) of Pub. L. 96–589, set out as a note under section 108 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1973–2003 · leading case: Chisholm v. Scott, 526 P.2d 1300 (N.M. Ct. App. 1974).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Chisholm v. Scott, 526 P.2d 1300 (N.M. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “In a case of malpractice by a certified public accountant, the evidence is easily documented from the date of the negligent act or omission in the form of accounting records.”

Ackerman v. Price Waterhouse, 156 Misc. 2d 865 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1992). “Veigel">706 P2d 63 [1985] [reference to assessment]; Maryland, Feldman v Granger, 255 Md 288, 257 A2d 421 [1969] [claim stale even using assessment date]; Maryland, Leonhart v Atkinson, 265 Md 219, 289 A2d 1 [1972] [reference to assessment]; New Mexico, Chisholm v Scott, 86 NM…”

Pine Builders, Inc. v. United States, 413 F. Supp. 77 (E.D. Va. 1976). “On 20 May 1975 the government served, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6155 , Notice of Final Demand on both Pine and Parham.”

United States v. Doyle, 276 F. Supp. 2d 415 (W.D. Pa. 2003). “15, citing, 26 U.S.C. § 6155 . “Since the duty with respect to subsequent assessments under Code Section 6155 is to pay in full, a debtor who cannot afford to pay such an assessment in full upon notice and demand cannot Voluntarily and intentionally’ violate a duty to pay.”

In Re Bertelt, 206 B.R. 587 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1996). “The Debtor argues that he does not owe the tax because he never received a Notice of Deficiency or a Notice and Demand for payment as required by 26 U.S.C. §§ 6155 or 6353. However, the requirements for the filing of returns and the payment of the tax by individuals are clearly…”

Morton-Norwich Prods., Inc. v. United States, 221 Ct. Cl. 83 (Ct. Cl. 1979). “26 U.S.C. § 6155 (a). If the date for payment is not prescribed, that date is deemed to be the date the liability for payment arises, and in no event is later than the date of the Commissioner’s notice and demand.”

Laing v. United States, 364 F. Supp. 469 (D. Vt. 1973). “§ 6303 (notice and demand for tax) nor 26 U. S.C. § 6155 (payment on notice and demand) require a writing.”

Bertelt v. United States (In Re Bertelt), 206 B.R. 579 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1996). “§ 7608 (b); (3) the Debtor never received a notice of deficiency or demand for payment of the taxes, which are conditions to the filing of a notice of federal tax lien pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6155 and 26 U.S.C. § 6303 ; and (4) the liens were not filed with Florida’s Secretary…”

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.