26 U.S.C. § 7622

Authority to administer oaths and certify

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

(a) Internal revenue personnel

Every officer or employee of the Treasury Department designated by the Secretary for that purpose is authorized to administer such oaths or affirmations and to certify to such papers as may be necessary under the internal revenue laws or regulations made thereunder.

(b) Others

Any oath or affirmation required or authorized under any internal revenue law or under any regulations made thereunder may be administered by any person authorized to administer oaths for general purposes by the law of the United States, or of any State or possession of the United States, or of the District of Columbia, wherein such oath or affirmation is administered. This subsection shall not be construed as an exclusive enumeration of the persons who may administer such oaths or affirmations.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 904; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), (c)(2), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834, 1835.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1976—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1906(b)(13)(A), struck out “or his delegate” after “Secretary”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1906(c)(2), struck out “Territory” after “any State”.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1966–1989 · leading case: United States v. Norman Micke, 859 F.2d 473 (7th Cir. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Norman Micke, 859 F.2d 473 (7th Cir. 1989). “” Assuming that the special agent who administered the oath was authorized under 26 U.S.C. § 7622 to administer an oath, the investigative interviews that generated the affidavit were nevertheless not shown to be a “proceeding” for the purpose of the rule.”

United States v. John E. Holroyd, 732 F.2d 1122 (2d Cir. 1984). “13) (effective 3/21/82), 1982- 1 C.B. 331 . None of the cases discusses the scope of perjury sanctions based on fraudulent statements on verified forms.”

United States v. Kouba, 632 F. Supp. 937 (D.N.D. 1986). · cites it 2× “See 26 U.S.C. § 7622 (a), (b). At the November 22, 1985, hearing, the defense presented no *941 evidence to show that Mongeon was not impowered to administer oaths pursuant to 26 U.”

United States v. Nicholas Conforti Domenick Pasquale, Sr., 360 F.2d 280 (3rd Cir. 1966). “, appellant herein, was tried in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on an information charging him: (1) With a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7622 , failure to pay a special occupational wagering tax imposed by 26 U.”

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.