26 U.S.C. § 6862

Jeopardy assessment of taxes other than income, estate, gift, and certain excise taxes

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

(a) Immediate assessment

If the Secretary believes that the collection of any tax (other than income tax, estate tax, gift tax, and the excise taxes imposed by chapters 41, 42, 43, and 44) under any provision of the internal revenue laws will be jeopardized by delay, he shall, whether or not the time otherwise prescribed by law for making return and paying such tax has expired, immediately assess such tax (together with all interest, additional amounts, and additions to the tax provided for by law). Such tax, additions to the tax, and interest shall thereupon become immediately due and payable, and immediate notice and demand shall be made by the Secretary for the payment thereof.

(b) Immediate levy

For provision permitting immediate levy in case of jeopardy, see section 6331(a).

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 836; Pub. L. 93–406, title II, § 1016(a)(25), Sept. 2, 1974, 88 Stat. 931; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834; Pub. L. 96–222, title I, § 108(b)(1)(C), Apr. 1, 1980, 94 Stat. 226; Pub. L. 96–223, title I, § 101(f)(9), Apr. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 253; Pub. L. 100–418, title I, § 1941(b)(2)(N), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1324.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1988—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–418 substituted “and 44” for “44, and 45”.

1980—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 96–223 which directed the substitution of “the excise taxes imposed by chapters 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45” for “certain excise taxes” was executed by inserting reference to chapter 45 in view of the amendment by Pub. L. 96–222.

Pub. L. 96–222 substituted “the taxes imposed by chapters 41, 42, 43, and 44” for “certain excise taxes”.

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

1974—Pub. L. 93–406 substituted “, gift, and certain excise taxes” for “, and gift taxes” in section catchline and “gift tax, and certain excise taxes)” for “and gift tax)” in subsec. (a).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–418 applicable to crude oil removed from the premises on or after Aug. 23, 1988, see section 1941(c) of Pub. L. 100–418, set out as a note under section 164 of this title.

Effective Date of 1980 Amendments

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–223 applicable to periods after Feb. 29, 1980, see section 101(i) of Pub. L. 96–223, set out as a note under section 6161 of this title.

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–222 effective as if included in the provisions of the Black Lung Benefits Revenue Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95–227, see section 108(b)(4) of Pub. L. 96–222, set out as a note under section 192 of this title.

Effective Date of 1974 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 93–406 applicable, except as otherwise provided in section 1017(c) through (i) of Pub. L. 93–406, for plan years beginning after Sept. 2, 1974, but, in the case of plans in existence on Jan. 1, 1974, amendment by Pub. L. 93–406 applicable for plan years beginning after Dec. 31, 1975, see section 1017 of Pub. L. 93–406, set out as an Effective Date; Transitional Rules note under section 410 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1962–2021 · leading case: Donald E. Hiley & Ruth v. Hiley v. United States, 807 F.2d 623 (7th Cir. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Donald E. Hiley & Ruth v. Hiley v. United States, 807 F.2d 623 (7th Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “On December 13, 1984, the IRS issued another notice of jeopardy assessment pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6862 for wagering and registry taxes, penalties, and interest in the amount of $201,175.”

James C. Smith v. United States, 894 F.2d 1549 (11th Cir. 1990). “But see 26 U.S.C.A. § 6862 (authorizing immediate assessment of withholding taxes (this authority is not exercised by the IRS in cases of impending bankruptcy)), and property of the taxpayer does not become subject to levy and distraint until after an assessment by the IRS.”

Richard Martinez v. United States, 669 F.2d 568 (9th Cir. 1982). “n appeal, Martinez makes several claims, including: (1) that the Marijuana Tax Act is unconstitutional, (2) that the Act was discriminatorily enforced against him, (3) that the IRS could not levy on property that was illegally seized from him by state police, (4) that the levy…”

Nannie v. Compton v. United States of Am., 334 F.2d 212 (4th Cir. 1964). “On the basis of these estimates the District Director, pursuant to 26 U.S.C.A. § 6862 , made a joint jeopardy assessment of excise and occupational taxes owed by plaintiff and Chase which, together with penalties and interest, totaled $75,167.”

Bremson v. United States, 459 F. Supp. 121 (W.D. Mo. 1978). “This return was spread over the 56-month period “[BJased upon the proposition the wagers in the Houston area were accepted on a six-day per week basis during a 13-week football season.”

Bean v. United States, 618 F. Supp. 652 (N.D. Ga. 1985). “§ 6861 , and for tax shelter penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 6862 , as these sections allow the IRS to bypass normal assessment and collection procedures whenever collection of revenue is “in jeopardy.”

Burd v. United States, 774 F. Supp. 903 (D.N.J. 1991). · cites it 2× “The issue presented in this action is whether the Internal Revenue Service’s jeopardy assessment pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6862 was reasonable under the circumstances.”

Drummond v. Dep't of Revenue (In Re Kurth Ranch), 145 B.R. 61 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1990). “1969), a case involving an illegal gambling operation, a jeopardy assessment under 26 U.S.C. § 6862 (a) was made by the Internal Revenue Service.”

Laing v. United States, 364 F. Supp. 469 (D. Vt. 1973). “Lucia and rife Pizzarello are patently distinguishable from this case because they do not involve jeopardy assessments under section 6851 but rather assessments under 26 U.S.C. § 6862 (a) for unpaid wagering taxes.”

Pizzarello v. United States, 408 F.2d 579 (2d Cir. 1969). “Jeopardy assessments are authorized by 26 U.S.C. § 6862 (a) if the District Director of Internal Revenue believes that the collection of a tax, other than income, estate or gift taxes, “will be jeopardized by delay.”

White v. Cardoza, 368 F. Supp. 1397 (E.D. Mich. 1973). · cites it 2× “Factually, it appears from the pleadings that the Defendants, acting pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6862 (a), imposed on the Plaintiff a jeopardy assessment in the amount of Two Hundred Thirty-eight Thousand One Hundred Thirty-four Dollars and Thirty-two Cents ($238,134.”

Patrick v. United States, 524 F.2d 1109 (7th Cir. 1975). “26 U.S.C. § 6862 allows an immediate assessment if the Secretary or his delegate believes that the collection of any tax (other than income tax, estate tax, and gift tax) under any provision of the internal revenue laws will be jeopardized by delay.”

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.