28 U.S.C. § 1340
Internal revenue; customs duties
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress providing for internal revenue, or revenue from imports or tonnage except matters within the jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 724
cases (55 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: Arthur Bedrosian v. United States, 912 F.3d 144 (3rd Cir. 2018).
Arthur Bedrosian v. United States, 912 F.3d 144 (3rd Cir. 2018). “Although the statute does not define "providing for internal revenue," we take guidance from courts that have construed this same phrase in 28 U.S.C. § 1340 , the only other federal statute that employs the same language.”
Berman v. United States, 264 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2001). “§ 1331 (1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1340 (1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (a)(2) (1994); and 28 U.”
Aqua Bar & Lounge, Inc. v. United States of Am. Dep't of Treasury Internal Revenue Serv. & Joseph B. Saltz, 539 F.2d 935 (3rd Cir. 1976). “Characterizing its suit as one to quiet title to property on which the United States has a lien, plaintiff asserts that the district court had jurisdiction to hear this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1340 in combination with 28 U.”
Orville MacKlin v. United States, 300 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2002). “Macklin’s complaint indicate that jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1340 — a statute conferring original jurisdiction on the district courts in any action arising under the internal revenue laws of the United States.”
James A. Murray v. United States, 686 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1982). “Appellant asserted jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 (civil action arising under Act of Congress providing for internal revenue), 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act), 1356 (seizure under law of the United States), 1402 (venue statute applicable to suits under Federal Tort Claims…”
Lynch v. Household Fin. Corp., 405 U.S. 538 (1972). “§ 1339 ; internal revenue and custom duties actions, 28 U. S. C. § 1340 ; election disputes, 28 U.”
United States v. Park Place Assocs., Ltd., 563 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2009). “2d at 231 (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1340 created subject matter jurisdiction, but “[did] not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Credit Bancorp, Ltd., 138 F. Supp. 2d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). “§ 2410 (a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1340 , and declaring that in notifying the Court and the United States of the potential for tax liability the Receiver has discharged his obligations pursuant to 31 U.”
Cameron v. Internal Revenue Serv., 593 F. Supp. 1540 (N.D. Ind. 1984). “…for this complaint is alleged to rest on the following statutory provisions: 26 U.S.C. §§ 7421 , 7425, 7428; 28 U.S.C. § 1340 ; and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 , 1983, and 1986. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss. The motion has two major assertions: that…”
Johansen v. United States, 506 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2007). “having jurisdiction of the sub *67 ject matter (1) to quiet title to; (2) to foreclose a mortgage or other lien upon; (3) to partition; (4) to condemn; or (5) of interpleader or in the nature of interpleader with respect to real or personal property on which the United States…”
Larry D. Harris v. Sentry Title Co., Inc. v. Travis Ward, 715 F.2d 941 (5th Cir. 1983). “The case was moved from state to federal court when the IRS asserted a claim against the proceeds, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 , 1345, and remained there after the IRS achieved satisfaction of its claims.”
John J. Kulawy v. United States, 917 F.2d 729 (2d Cir. 1990). “Kulawy appeals from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Ellen Bree Burns, Chief Judge, dismissing his action against the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 2410(a) (1988) to quiet title to certain of his personal…”
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.