U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART V— PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 127— EXECUTIONS AND JUDICIAL SALES

28 U.S.C. § 2006

Execution against revenue officer

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
Execution shall not issue against a collector or other revenue officer on a final judgment in any proceeding against him for any of his acts, or for the recovery of any money exacted by or paid to him and subsequently paid into the Treasury, in performing his official duties, if the court certifies that:(1) probable cause existed; or(2) the officer acted under the directions of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of Justice, or other proper Government officer.When such certificate has been issued, the amount of the judgment shall be paid out of the proper appropriation by the Treasury.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 960; Pub. L. 107–296, title XI, § 1112(l), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2277.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 842 (R.S. § 989).

Changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2002—Par. (2). Pub. L. 107–296 inserted “, the Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of Justice,” after “the Secretary of the Treasury”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2002 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 107–296 effective 60 days after Nov. 25, 2002, see section 4 of Pub. L. 107–296, set out as an Effective Date note under section 101 of Title 6, Domestic Security.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1949–2025 · leading case: States Marine Lines, Inc. v. George P. Shultz, Sec'y of the Treasury, 498 F.2d 1146 (4th Cir. 1974).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
States Marine Lines, Inc. v. George P. Shultz, Sec'y of the Treasury, 498 F.2d 1146 (4th Cir. 1974). · cites it 13× “Title 28 U.S.C. § 2006 provides: “Execution shall not issue against a collector or other revenue officer on a final judgment in any proceeding against him for any of his acts, or for the recovery of any money exacted by or paid to him and subsequently paid into the Treasury, in…”
Kosak v. United States, 465 U.S. 848 (1984). · cites it 2× “[20] Title 28 U. S. C. § 2006 provides that judgments in such suits shall be paid out of the Federal Treasury if a court certifies that there existed probable cause for the detention of the goods and that the official was acting under the directions of an appropriate supervisor.”
Hatzlachh Supply Co. v. United States, 444 U.S. 460 (1980). · cites it 2× “It does support the judgment on a ground concededly not urged in the Court of Claims: that the contractual remedy should be rejected because individual customs officers are subject to tort liability and because 28 U. S. C. § 2006 provides that judgments against customs officers…”
Joromi H. Bazuaye v. United States, 83 F.3d 482 (D.C. Cir. 1996). · cites it 3× “737 , 741 (current version at 28 U.S.C. § 2006 ). As Justice Cardozo observed, this removal and indemnification process effectively transformed “the suit against the collector into a suit against the government.”
Anthony Andrews v. United States, 441 F.3d 220 (4th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “4 Before the FTCA’s enactment, a property owner was able to bring suit against individual customs or tax officers for property damage, for which the United States provided indemnification through 28 U.S.C.A. § 2006 (West Supp. 2005) under certain conditions not relevant here,…”
C.H. Sanders Co. v. BHAP Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 750 F. Supp. 67 (E.D.N.Y 1990). · cites it 3× “) and eventually 28 U.S.C. § 2006 which provides: § 2006. Execution against revenue officer Execution shall not issue against a collector or other revenue officer on a final judgment in any proceeding against him for any of his acts, or for the recovery of any money enacted by…”
duPont Glore Forgan Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 428 F. Supp. 1297 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). · cites it 2× “In fact, the only authority cited by plaintiffs in support of the distinction between a case where taxes were collected without probable cause and a case where probable cause exists, 28 U.S.C. § 2006 , is patently irrelevant, See n.”
United States v. Harry Lemaire, Est. of Richard Patton, Hilmar R. Zeissig, Bert F. Scales, & Dieter J. Scherfenberg v. Mbank Abilene, N.A., 826 F.2d 387 (5th Cir. 1987). “28 U.S.C. § 2006 (Act Mar. 3, 1863, c. 76, § 12, 12 Stat.”
Eugene C. Walsh & Lois M. Walsh v. United States, 672 F.2d 746 (9th Cir. 1982). “It does support the judgment on a ground concededly not urged in the Court of Claims: that the contractual remedy should be rejected because individual Customs officers are subject to tort liability and because 28 U.S.C. § 2006 provides that judgments against Customs officers…”
Smale & Robinson, Inc. v. United States, 123 F. Supp. 457 (S.D. Cal. 1954). “Defendant denies liability contending that plaintiff’s claim for refund, timely filed, does not cover the ground sued on. I.R.C. §§ 3772, 322 (b) (6), 26 U.”
Powell v. Rothensies, 183 F.2d 774 (3rd Cir. 1950). “Under these circumstances it was within the scope of the defendant’s ministerial duty to make the levy and collection here in controversy and he cannot be held answerable in damages for so doing.”
Laurie W. Tomlinson, Dist. Dir. of Internal Revenue for the Dist. of Florida v. Florida Iron & Metal, Inc., 291 F.2d 333 (5th Cir. 1961). “2 Under this section the issuance of such certificate actually prohibits the enforced collection of the amount of the judgment from the collector.”
Show all 33 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.