26 U.S.C. § 7852

Other applicable rules

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

(a) Separability clause

If any provision of this title, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of the title, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.

(b) Reference in other laws to Internal Revenue Code of 1939

Any reference in any other law of the United States or in any Executive order to any provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 shall, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof, be deemed also to refer to the corresponding provision of this title.

Except as otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly intended, the same item (whether of income, deduction, credit, or otherwise) shall not be taken into account both in computing a tax under subtitle A of this title and a tax under chapter 1 or 2 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.

(d) Treaty obligations(1) In general

For purposes of determining the relationship between a provision of a treaty and any law of the United States affecting revenue, neither the treaty nor the law shall have preferential status by reason of its being a treaty or law.

(2) Savings clause for 1954 treaties

No provision of this title (as in effect without regard to any amendment thereto enacted after August 16, 1954) shall apply in any case where its application would be contrary to any treaty obligation of the United States in effect on August 16, 1954.

(e) Privacy Act of 1974

The provisions of subsections (d)(2), (3), and (4), and (g) of section 552a of title 5, United States Code, shall not be applied, directly or indirectly, to the determination of the existence or possible existence of liability (or the amount thereof) of any person for any tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or other imposition or offense to which the provisions of this title apply.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 922; Pub. L. 94–455, title XII, § 1202(g), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1688; Pub. L. 100–647, title I, § 1012(aa)(1)(A), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3531.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Internal Revenue Code of 1939, referred to in subsec. (b), is act Feb. 10, 1939, ch. 2, 53 Stat. 1. Prior to the enactment of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [formerly I.R.C. 1954], the 1939 Code was classified to former Title 26, Internal Revenue Code. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was redesignated The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by Pub. L. 99–514, § 2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095. For table of comparisons of the 1939 Code to the 1986 Code, see Table I preceding section 1 of this title.

Chapters 1 and 2 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, referred to in subsec. (c), are chapters 1 and 2 of former Title 26, Internal Revenue Code. For history of such chapters, see References in Text note set out under section 7851 of this title.

The Privacy Act of 1974, referred to in subsec. (e), is Pub. L. 93–579, Dec. 31, 1974, 88 Stat. 1896, which enacted section 552a of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, and enacted notes set out under section 552a of Title 5. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 552a of Title 5 and Tables.

Amendments

1988—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 100–647 amended subsec. (d) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (d) read as follows: “No provision of this title shall apply in any case where its application would be contrary to any treaty obligation of the United States in effect on the date of enactment of this title.”

1976—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 94–455 added subsec. (e).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1988 Amendment

Pub. L. 100–647, title I, § 1012(aa)(1)(B), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3531, provided that: “Section 7852(d)(1) of the 1986 Code, as added by subparagraph (A), shall apply to any taxable period with respect to which the time for assessment of any deficiency has not expired by reason of any law or rule of law before the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 10, 1988].”

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–647 effective, except as otherwise provided, as if included in the provision of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99–514, to which such amendment relates, see section 1019(a) of Pub. L. 100–647, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.

Effective Date of 1976 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 94–455 effective Jan. 1, 1977, see section 1202(i) of Pub. L. 94–455, set out as a note under section 6103 of this title.

Application of Subsec. (d) to Pub. L. 87–834

Pub. L. 87–834, § 31, Oct. 16, 1962, 76 Stat. 1069, as amended by Pub. L. 99–514, § 2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095, provided that: “Section 7852(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [formerly I.R.C. 1954] (relating to treaty obligations) shall not apply in respect of any amendment made by this Act [see Short Title of 1962 Amendments note set out under section 1 of this title].”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 46 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1960–2024 · leading case: Frank A. England, III v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 798 F.2d 350 (9th Cir. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Frank A. England, III v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 798 F.2d 350 (9th Cir. 1986). · cites it 5× “The district court dismissed the action on the ground that 26 U.S.C. § 7852 (e) deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction.”

Cohen v. United States, 650 F.3d 717 (D.C. Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “*14 That much is evident from the AIA, the DJA, and Congress's decision to relieve the IRS from some, but not all, of the requirements in the APA, see 26 U.S.C. § 7852 (e). Once the limits of the protections Congress provided have been surpassed, however, the IRS is subject to…”

Maxwell v. Rubin, 3 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 1998). · cites it 7× “At the February 5, 1998 hearing, the Court asked the parties to address whether the relevant provision of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 7852 (e) deprived the Court of jurisdiction over these eases.”

Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 (1968). “See 26 U. S. C. § 7852 (a). Cf. Warren v. Mayor of Charlestown, 2 Gray 84 , 99; Carter v.”

Gardner, Bruce E v. United States, 213 F.3d 735 (D.C. Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “In view of the plain language of the Internal Revenue Code, the district court correctly ruled that 26 U.S.C. § 7852 (e) stripped the court of subject matter jurisdiction over Mr.”

Maxwell, Lawrence v. Snow, John, 409 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “§ 6103 was the proper vehicle for requesting information rather than the Privacy Act because 26 U.S.C. § 7852 (e) withdrew the power of the federal courts to force the IRS to comply with the Privacy Act.”

Charles E. Moritz v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 469 F.2d 466 (10th Cir. 1972). · cites it 2× “26 U.S.C.A. § 7852 (a). We conclude that the challenged provision in § 214 is invalid and should be denied application, and that the benefit of the deduction generally provided by the statute should be extended to the taxpayer.”

Raymond E. McMillen Jr. & Laura McMillen v. United States Dep't of Treasury, 960 F.2d 187 (1st Cir. 1991). “” 26 U.S.C. § 7852 (e). There are, of course, several statutes that do waive sovereign immunity for causes of action that concern taxation.”

Albert Watson, Jr. v. United States, 439 F.2d 442 (D.C. Cir. 1970). · cites it 2× “This could, so it was said, conceivably be rationalized on (1) the theory that what is cruel and unusual about appellant’s sentence is the denial of parole and (2) the severability clause of 26 U.S.C. § 7852 . Appellant’s response to the court’s plea for help was even more…”

O'Connor v. United States, 669 F. Supp. 317 (D. Nev. 1987). · cites it 3× “26 U.S.C. § 7852 (e) provides: The provisions of subsections (d)(2), (3), and (4), and (g) of section 552a of title 5, United States Code, shall not be applied, directly or indirectly, to the determination of the existence or possible existence of liability (or the amount…”

Pittston Co. v. United States, 368 F.3d 385 (4th Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “Because Congress revealed its intent to make the provisions of Title 26 severable, Pittston must present “strong evidence” that Congress would never have intended to enact the Coal Act’s assignment scheme at all if it could not have included Eastern-like operators.”

Kappus v. Comm'r, 337 F.3d 1053 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “3342, Congress passed the following provision, now codified as 26 U.S.C. § 7852 (d)(1): (d) Treaty Obligations.”

Show all 46 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.