26 U.S.C. § 9722
Sham transactions
If a principal purpose of any transaction is to evade or avoid liability under this chapter, this chapter shall be applied (and such liability shall be imposed) without regard to such transaction.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1995–2020 · leading case: Michael Holland v. Westmoreland Coal Compan, 968 F.3d 526 (5th Cir. 2020).
Michael Holland v. Westmoreland Coal Compan, 968 F.3d 526 (5th Cir. 2020). “The first Coal Act protection they invoke, 26 U.S.C. § 9722 , may coexist with a section 1114 proceeding.”
Holland, Michael v. Williams Mtn Coal Co, 256 F.3d 819 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “” 26 U.S.C. § 9722 . The bankruptcy laws similarly provide relief against fraudulent transfers.”
United States v. William Lee Workinger, 90 F.3d 1409 (9th Cir. 1996). “§ 1 (a)(1), which refers to “every married individual (as defined in section 7703),” and 26 U.S.C. § 9722 , which states: “If a principal purpose of any transaction is to evade or avoid liability under this chapter, this chapter shall be applied (and such liability shall be…”
UMWA 1992 Benefit Plan v. Leckie Smokeless Coal Co., 201 B.R. 163 (S.D.W. Va 1996). “26 U.S.C. § 9722 . B. The Bankruptcy Code “[C]laim” means— (A) right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.”
Carbon Fuel Co. v. USX Corp., 891 F. Supp. 1186 (S.D.W. Va 1995). “The retention of the assigned operator as a guarantor of benefits despite a transfer provides an additional safeguard against sham transactions supplemental to the provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 9722 . 20 . The Coal Act also provides that the benefits provided under the 1992 UMWA…”
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.