26 U.S.C. § 7302
Property used in violation of internal revenue laws
It shall be unlawful to have or possess any property intended for use in violating the provisions of the internal revenue laws, or regulations prescribed under such laws, or which has been so used, and no property rights shall exist in any such property. A search warrant may issue as provided in chapter 205 of title 18 of the United States Code and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for the seizure of such property. Nothing in this section shall in any manner limit or affect any criminal or forfeiture provision of the internal revenue laws, or of any other law. The seizure and forfeiture of any property under the provisions of this section and the disposition of such property subsequent to seizure and forfeiture, or the disposition of the proceeds from the sale of such property, shall be in accordance with existing laws or those hereafter in existence relating to seizures, forfeitures, and disposition of property or proceeds, for violation of the internal revenue laws.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 143
cases, 1955–1996 · leading case: United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996).
United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996). “, at 716 (quoting 26 U. S. C. § 7302 ). The Court held that the Fifth Amendment barred the Government's attempt to introduce evidence of the defendant's failure to file required tax forms against him in the forfeiture proceeding.”
United States v. One 1975 Pontiac Lemans, Veh. I.D. No. 2f37m56101227, Appeal of Irma Zullo, 621 F.2d 444 (1st Cir. 1980). “The district court, finding that the car had been used in violation of the internal revenue laws and had been properly seized, without a warrant, by agents of the Treasury Department, denied Zullo’s claim for return of the car and ordered that it be forfeit to the government.”
Samuel Berkowitz v. United States of Am., Libellant, 340 F.2d 168 (1st Cir. 1965). “The relevant statutory provisions are codified in 26 U.S.C. §§ 7302 and 7321, which provide: § 7302 “It shall be unlawful to have or possess any property intended for use in violating the provi *169 sions of the internal revenue laws, or regulations prescribed under such laws,…”
Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (1974). “In Coin & Currency, the Government claimed that the privilege against self-incrimination could not be asserted in a forfeiture proceeding under 26 U. S. C. § 7302 by one in possession of money seized from him when used in an illegal bookmaking operation.”
United States v. Four (4) Pinball MacHines, 429 F. Supp. 1002 (D. Haw. 1977). “BACKGROUND These four forfeiture actions under 26 U.S.C. § 7302 were consolidated for trial.”
Silbert v. United States, 289 F. Supp. 318 (D. Maryland 1968). “Can the Government retain any of the property seized from Salsbury, Silbert, Kassap or Bondroff under the forfeiture provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 7302 , or as contraband per se, or as property which has been subjected to assessment and levy by the Government? The answer to this…”
United States v. United States Coin & Currency, 401 U.S. 715 (1971). “The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found that the money was being used in a bookmaking operation in violation of these internal revenue laws and ordered forfeiture under 26 U.”
Gosa v. Mayden, 413 U.S. 665 (1973). “62 (1968), precluding the criminal conviction of a gambler who properly asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as a reason for his failure to register and to pay the federal gambling tax, would be applied retroactively so as to invalidate forfeiture…”
May v. United States, 515 F. Supp. 600 (S.D. Ohio 1981). “Despite that action, however, the government continued to withhold Plaintiff’s property, and failed to file its own forfeiture action under 26 U.S.C. § 7302 until January 22, 1980, over one year after the original seizure of Plaintiff’s property.”
Raymond J. Ryan & Helen Ryan v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 568 F.2d 531 (7th Cir. 1977). “It is true that in some instances, the civil-criminal distinction is hard to ascertain.”
United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan, Serial No. 6l47s4q407966, 548 F.2d 421 (2d Cir. 1977). “Simpson involved a forfeiture under 26 U.S.C. § 7302 which provides for the seizure of “any property intended *424 for use in violating the provisions of the internal revenue laws.”
Florida Dealers & Growers Bank & Amy E. Moon v. United States, 279 F.2d 673 (5th Cir. 1960). “This appeal is from an order entered in a forfeiture proceeding brought under 26 U.S.C. § 7302 , 1 declaring an automobile forfeit and denying claims of the appellants, the purchaser and the holder of a chattel mortgage on the automobile, for remission of the forfeiture.”
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.