26 U.S.C. § 7327
Customs laws applicable
The provisions of law applicable to the remission or mitigation by the Secretary of forfeitures under the customs laws shall apply to forfeitures incurred or alleged to have been incurred under the internal revenue laws.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases, 1958–2004 · leading case: United States v. Ninety-Three (93) Firearms, & Assorted Firearm Parts & Ammunition, Larry Z. Short, Claimant-Appellant, 330 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 2003).
United States v. Ninety-Three (93) Firearms, & Assorted Firearm Parts & Ammunition, Larry Z. Short, Claimant-Appellant, 330 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 2003). “One such provision, 26 U.S.C. § 7327 , incorporates the provisions of the customs forfeiture laws which provide in 19 U.”
United States of Am., Appellee-Plaintiff v. Miscellaneous Firearms, Explosives, Destructive Devices & Ammunition, Appeal Of: Donna Fleischli, 376 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 2004). “One such provision, 26 U.S.C. § 7327 , incorporates a 5-year statute of limitations for bringing judicial forfeiture actions in cases under customs laws.”
United States v. United States Coin & Currency, 401 U.S. 715 (1971). “§ 7327 provides that: "The provisions of law applicable to the remission or mitigation by the Secretary or his delegate of forfeitures under the customs laws shall apply to forfeitures incurred or alleged to have been incurred under the internal revenue laws.”
United States v. One 1975 Pontiac Lemans, Veh. I.D. No. 2f37m56101227, Appeal of Irma Zullo, 621 F.2d 444 (1st Cir. 1980). “§ 7327 which, it noted, establishes a remission and mitigation procedure that “permits the innocent owner to prove to the Secretary of the Treasury that the ‘forfeiture was incurred without willful negligence or without any intention on the part of the petitioner .”
Earl Roy Cooper v. City of Greenwood, Mississippi & Leflore Cnty., Mississippi, Earl Roy Cooper v. City of Greenwood, Mississippi, 904 F.2d 302 (5th Cir. 1990). “26 U.S.C. § 7327 ; 19 U.S.C. § 1618 ; 27 C.”
United States v. Four (4) Pinball MacHines, 429 F. Supp. 1002 (D. Haw. 1977). “1965), the court said that it could not grant relief to the owner, but that the owner should seek relief from the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7327 and 19 U.S.C. § 1618 . 13 It appears that National Amusement, Inc.”
United States v. Gordon, 634 F. Supp. 409 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). “8 (citing 26 U.S.C. § 7327 ). Thus, an “innocent owner” could seek remission from the Secretary of Treasury by proving that the “ ‘forfeiture was incurred without willful negligence or without any intention on the part of the petitioner .”
Don Camby Lowther v. United States of Am., 480 F.2d 1031 (10th Cir. 1973). “The question is then whether by applying for remission of the penalty pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7327 rather than filing a bond pursuant to 26 U.”
Bramble v. Kleindienst, 357 F. Supp. 1028 (D. Colo. 1973). “Also as noted above, Congress created a discretionary administrative power to remit forfeitures, 26 U.S.C. § 7327 , 19 U.S.C. § 1618 (1964).”
United States v. Five (5) Coin-operated Gaming Devices, 246 F. Supp. 349 (W.D. Va. 1965). “The provisions for remission or mitigation of forfeitures arising from violations of the customs laws are found in 19 U.S.C. § 1618 . It provides for remission or mitigation of a forfeiture if the Secretary of the Treasury finds that such * * * forfeiture was incurred without…”
Jack Dailey McKeehan v. United States, 438 F.2d 739 (6th Cir. 1971). “Also as noted above, Congress created a discretionary administrative power to remit forfeitures, 26 U.S.C. § 7327 , 19 U.S.C. § 1618 (1964).”
May v. United States, 515 F. Supp. 600 (S.D. Ohio 1981). “Where a forfeiture has been incurred under the Internal Revenue laws, 26 U.S.C. § 7327 permits an application for remission to be filed pursuant to the remission procedures outlined in the customs laws.”
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.