4 U.S.C. § 106
Same; income tax
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34
cases, 1949–2020 · leading case: City of Riverside v. State, 944 N.E.2d 281 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010).
City of Riverside v. State, 944 N.E.2d 281 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “01(H)(11)] is preempted by 4 U.S.C. § 106 (a) (the “Buck Act”), and is therefore unconstitutional, void, and of no legal effect; and 2.”
Jefferson Cnty. v. Acker, 850 F. Supp. 1536 (N.D. Ala. 1994). “4 U.S.C. § 106 (a). Both 4 U.S.C. § 111 and the Buck Act, 4 U.”
INOVA Diagnostics, Inc. v. Strayhorn, 166 S.W.3d 394 (Tex. App. 2005). “INOVA also relies on case law discussing the Buck Act ( 4 U.S.C. § 106 (West 2005)) in which the franchise tax is considered an income tax.”
United States v. City of Pittsburgh, 589 F. Supp. 179 (W.D. Pa. 1984). “§ 106 (a) provides that: No person shall be relieved from liability for any income tax levied by any State, or by any duly constituted taxing authority therein, having jurisdiction to levy such a tax, by reason of his residing within a Federal area or receiving income from…”
United States v. Lewisburg Area Sch. Dist., 539 F.2d 301 (3rd Cir. 1976). “The stipulation of facts agreed on between the parties and made part of the record below included a provision that the plaintiff did not challenge the right of defendants to assess and collect the taxes in question from federal employees residing off the federal enclave within…”
Mississippi River Fuel Corp. v. Roland Cocreham, Collector of Revenue of the State of Louisiana, 382 F.2d 929 (5th Cir. 1967). “4 U.S.C.A. § 106 . The Act defines “income tax” as “any tax levied on, with respect to, or measured by, net income, gross income, or gross receipts.”
Application of Thompson, 157 F. Supp. 93 (E.D. Pa. 1957). “” *98 In the Buck Act ( 4 U.S.C.A. § 106 ), Congress provided that: “No person shall be relieved from liability for any income tax levied by any State, or by any duly constituted taxing authority therein, having jurisdiction to levy such a tax, by reason of his residing within a…”
Shell Oil Co. v. Sec'y, 683 So. 2d 1204 (La. 1996). “On appeal, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the judgment of the trial judge, holding: (1) that 1973 amendments to state law regarding the method of calculation of severance taxes brought the taxes imposed within the meaning of an "income tax," as that term is used…”
Jefferson Cnty. v. Acker, 61 F.3d 848 (11th Cir. 1995). “4 U.S.C. § 106 (a). Unlike the Public Salary Act, the Buck Act defines the state taxation to which the United States consents.”
Jefferson Cnty. v. Acker, 92 F.3d 1561 (11th Cir. 1996). “4 U.S.C. § 106 (a). Unlike the Public Salary Act, the Buck Act defines the state taxation to which the United States consents.”
Rountree v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 596 P.2d 739 (Colo. 1979). “If the Congress wishes to allow the Denver occupational tax to be collected from federal employees, as the majority opinion indicates, then a simple, straightforward *745 amendment of the Buck Act would accomplish that purpose.”
State v. Baker, 393 P.2d 893 (Alaska 1964). “” 4 U.S.C.A. § 106 (a) [ 61 Stat. 641 (1947)].”
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.