26 U.S.C. § 7208

Offenses relating to stamps

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

Any person who—(1) Counterfeiting

With intent to defraud, alters, forges, makes, or counterfeits any stamp, coupon, ticket, book, or other device prescribed under authority of this title for the collection or payment of any tax imposed by this title, or sells, lends, or has in his possession any such altered, forged, or counterfeited stamp, coupon, ticket, book, or other device, or makes, uses, sells, or has in his possession any material in imitation of the material used in the manufacture of such stamp, coupon, ticket, book, or other device; or

(2) Mutilation or removal

Fraudulently cuts, tears, or removes from any vellum, parchment, paper, instrument, writing, package, or article, upon which any tax is imposed by this title, any adhesive stamp or the impression of any stamp, die, plate, or other article provided, made, or used in pursuance of this title; or

(3) Use of mutilated, insufficient, or counterfeited stampsFraudulently uses, joins, fixes, or places to, with, or upon any vellum, parchment, paper, instrument, writing, package, or article, upon which any tax is imposed by this title,(A) any adhesive stamp, or the impression of any stamp, die, plate, or other article, which has been cut, torn, or removed from any other vellum, parchment, paper, instrument, writing, package, or article, upon which any tax is imposed by this title; or(B) any adhesive stamp or the impression of any stamp, die, plate, or other article of insufficient value; or(C) any forged or counterfeited stamp, or the impression of any forged or counterfeited stamp, die, plate, or other article; or(4) Reuse of stamps(A) Preparation for reuse

Willfully removes, or alters the cancellation or defacing marks of, or otherwise prepares, any adhesive stamp, with intent to use, or cause the same to be used, after it has already been used; or

(B) Trafficking

Knowingly or willfully buys, sells, offers for sale, or gives away, any such washed or restored stamp to any person for use, or knowingly uses the same; or

Knowingly and without lawful excuse (the burden of proof of such excuse being on the accused) has in possession any washed, restored, altered stamp, which has been removed from any vellum, parchment, paper, instrument, writing, package, or article; or

(5) Emptied stamped packages

Commits the offense described in section 7271 (relating to disposal and receipt of stamped packages) with intent to defraud the revenue, or to defraud any person;

shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 853.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases, 1963–2015 · leading case: Matter of Shorter, 570 A.2d 760 (D.C. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Matter of Shorter, 570 A.2d 760 (D.C. 1990). “§ 7201 (1982), and six misdemeanor counts of willful failure to pay taxes, 26 U.S.C. § 7208 (1982 & Supp. V 1987). 1 On January 10, 1986, finding that respondent had been convicted of a serious crime within the meaning of Bar Rule XI, § 15(1), (4) 2 law, we accordingly referred…”

State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Spradling, 2009 OK 39 (Okla. 2009). “THE ANATOMY OF LITIGATION 12 Cameron Maxwell Spradling (respondent or Spradling) pleaded guilty on November 29, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to one misdemeanor count of failure to file an income tax return for 2008 in violation of…”

United States v. Gene Jirak, 728 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2013). “In Cheek , the petitioner was charged with six counts of willfully failing to file federal income tax returns in *814 violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7208 and three counts of willfully attempting to evade income taxes in violation of 26 U.”

In Re Thomas, 38 So. 3d 248 (La. 2010). “” In Thomas I, respondent was convicted of two counts of willful failure to timely file income tax returns for the years 1988 and 1989, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7208 . Because a violation of this statute is a misdemeanor rather than a felony, we must examine the elements of…”

United States v. Beck, 157 F. App'x 784 (6th Cir. 2005). “Beck appeals the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to one count of failing to file a tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7208 . Specifically, Beck argues that the magistrate judge erred by sentencing him under the mandatory guidelines system in place at the time of his…”

James F. Hull v. United States, 324 F.2d 817 (5th Cir. 1963). “The counts under which Hull was convicted charged that he did willfully and knowingly “ * * * aid and assist in, and counsel, procure and advise” in the preparation and presentation to the District Director of Internal Revenue of false and fraudulent income tax returns of 3…”

United States v. Michele Kellar, 394 F. App'x 158 (5th Cir. 2010). “§ 7201 , and Philip with four additional counts of willful failure to file income tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7208 . At trial, the Kellars argued that they did not act “willfully.”

United States v. James Louis Willoz, United States of Am. v. James Louis Willoz, 449 F.2d 1321 (5th Cir. 1971). “* * * ” *1325 In Grosso , the Supreme Court held: "Although failures to pay the excise tax and to file a return are separately punishable under 26 U.S.C. § 7208 , the two obligations must be considered inseparable for purposes of measuring the hazards of self-incrimination which…”

United States v. Yang, 887 F. Supp. 95 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). “26 U.S.C. § 7208 . The Court of Appeals stated, 969 F.”

United States v. Charles Looney, 152 F. App'x 849 (11th Cir. 2005). “” In our remand order, this Court noted that the statutory maximum fine for an individual who violates 26 U.S.C. § 7208 is $25,000, and not $75,000, as was imposed.”

United States v. Larry Stuler, 614 F. App'x 597 (3rd Cir. 2015). “Stuler was indicted and convicted for violating 26 U.S.C. § 7208 . See United States v. McKee, 506 F.”

United States v. Fusero, 106 F. Supp. 2d 921 (E.D. Mich. 2000). “” Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, p. 2. With respect to Counts II and III, defendant maintains that there was “no standard of law upon which to allow the triers of fact to decide that the defendant violated some obligation or duty by filing a W-4 Form that said ‘Exempt.”

Show all 13 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.