4 U.S.C. § 107
Same; exception of United States, its instrumentalities, and authorized purchases 11 So in original. Probably should be “purchasers”. therefrom
1954—Subsec. (b). Act
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1968–2020 · leading case: United Pac. Ins. Co. v. Wyoming Excise Tax Div., Dep't of Revenue & Taxation, 713 P.2d 217 (Wyo. 1986).
United Pac. Ins. Co. v. Wyoming Excise Tax Div., Dep't of Revenue & Taxation, 713 P.2d 217 (Wyo. 1986). “[10] Any such suit would properly be entertained by Wyoming courts.”
Jefferson Cnty. v. Acker, 850 F. Supp. 1536 (N.D. Ala. 1994). “See also 4 U.S.C. § 107 6 ; United States v. State Tax Comm’n of Mississippi, 412 U.”
United States v. Tax Comm'n of Miss., 421 U.S. 599 (1975). “provides: “The provisions of [§ 105 of this Act] shall not be deemed to authorize the levy or collection of any tax on or from the United States or any instrumentality thereof, or the levy or collection of any tax with respect to sale, purchase, storage, or use of tangible…”
United States v. State Tax Comm'n, 412 U.S. 363 (1973). “" 4 U. S. C. § 107 (a). The markup which the State requires wholesalers of liquor to make is in its worst light a sales tax.”
Sullivan v. United States, 395 U.S. 169 (1969). “” 32 4 U. S. C. § 107 states: “(a) The provisions of sections 105 and 106 of this title shall not be deemed to authorize the levy or collection of any tax on or from the United States or any instrumentality thereof, or the levy or collection of any tax with respect to sale,…”
United States v. State Tax Com'n of State of Mississippi, 378 F. Supp. 558 (S.D. Miss. 1974). “4 U.S.C.A. § 107 (a) (Supp.1974). The Supreme Court certified two Buck Act issues for determination by this court on remand: “Whether the markup should be treated as a tax on sales occurring within a federal area within the meaning of § 105(a), .”
W. Kentucky Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Cabinet, 80 S.W.3d 787 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001). “4U.S.C. § 107. . United States v. Mississippi Tax Comm’n, 421 U.”
C. R. Fedrick, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 20 Cont. Cas. Fed. 82,957 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974). “’ 4 U.S.C. § 107 (a). *392 “The markup which the State requires wholesalers of liquor to make is in its worst light a sales tax.”
Jefferson Cnty. v. Acker, 61 F.3d 848 (11th Cir. 1995). “" 4 U.S.C.A. § 107 (a). Although the majority correctly points out that this provision confirms the continued applicability of the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine, the majority's attempted distinction fails to recognize that an income tax is clearly not barred by the tax…”
Jefferson Cnty. v. Acker, 92 F.3d 1561 (11th Cir. 1996). “” 4 U.S.C.A. § 107 (a). Although the majority correctly points out that this provision confirms the continued applicability of the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine, the majority’s attempted distinction fails to recognize that an income tax is clearly not barred by the tax…”
W. Ky Coca-cola Bottling v. Revenue Cabinet, 80 S.W.3d 787 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001). “[8] 4 U.S.C. § 107 . [9] United States v. Mississippi Tax Comm'n, 421 U.”
United States v. Sullivan, 398 F.2d 672 (2d Cir. 1968). “It has been stipulated that Connecticut cannot tax sales to servicemen made by military exchanges or commissaries operated by the armed services on military installations.”
— 4 U.S.C. § 107(a) — 1 case
United States v. State Tax Com'n of State of Mississippi, 378 F. Supp. 558 (S.D. Miss. 1974). “4 U.S.C.A. § 107 (a) (Supp.1974). The Supreme Court certified two Buck Act issues for determination by this court on remand: “Whether the markup should be treated as a tax on sales occurring within a federal area within the meaning of § 105(a), .”
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.