4 U.S.C. § 111
Same; taxation affecting Federal employees; income tax
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| ||
The words “received after
1998—Pub. L. 105–261 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
Pub. L. 105–261, div. A, title X, § 1075(b)(2),
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 114
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1955–2023 · leading case: Davis v. Michigan Department of the Treasury
Davis v. Michigan Department of the Treasury (1989)
“Appellant's complaint, which was amended to include the 1984 tax year, averred that his federal retirement benefits were "not legally taxable under *807 the Michigan Income Tax Law" and that the State's inconsistent treatment of state and federal retirement benefits…”
Harper v. Virginia Department of Taxation (1993)
“We held that the United States had not consented under 4 U. S. C. § 111 [1] to this discriminatory imposition of a heavier tax burden on federal benefits than on state and local benefits.”
Sheehy v. Public Employees Retirement Division (1993)
“Laws, phasing out the $3,600 exemption does not violate 4 U.S.C. § 111 ? 3. Did the District Court err in concluding that the retirement adjustment payment contained in Ch.”
Sheehy v. State (1991)
“§ 111 did not apply to retirees and that, under a rational basis test, the taxing scheme was not unconstitutional because it furthered the state's interest in attracting and retaining qualified employees. The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal.”
Hackman v. Director of Revenue (1989)
“Davis held that Michigan's income taxation scheme, which exempted from taxation all retirement benefits paid by the state or its political subdivisions but levied an income tax on retirement benefits paid retired federal employees, violated 4 U.S.C. § 111 . [1] In this case we…”
Barker v. Kansas (1992)
“[1] The issue before us is whether the tax imposed on the military retirees is inconsistent with 4 U. S. C. § 111 , which provides: "The United States consents to the taxation of pay or compensation for personal service as an officer or employee of the United States, a territory…”
Strelecki v. Oklahoma Tax Commission (1994)
“statute, 4 U.S.C. § 111 . [16] The Michigan court upheld the state law.”
Ragsdale v. Department of Revenue (1995)
“' 4 U.S.C. § 111 ." Relevant portions of the PERS trust fund capital and income cannot be taxed by the state when transferred to a retiree now or later without impairing the obligation of contract, in my view.”
Pledger v. Bosnick (1991)
“On November 1, 1990, the Chancellor entered his order and (i) found that the Arkansas income tax laws violated the principles of intergovernmental tax immunity and 4 U.S.C. § 111 ; (ii) enjoined the defendants from collecting the income tax found to be unconstitutional; (iii)…”
Jefferson County v. Acker (1994)
“1120 which imposes a tax of of 1% on the gross income from the “vocation, occupation, calling or profession” subject to the tax; (2) Alabama Act 406 of 1967, (3) 4 U.S.C. § 111 (the Public Salary Act), and (4) 4 U.”
Bailey v. State (1998)
“Under 4 U.S.C. § 111 , the federal government expressly "consents to the taxation [by states] of pay or compensation for personal service as an officer or employee of the United States .”
Bohn v. Waddell (1990)
“Davis claimed that the state's inconsistent treatment of state and federal retirement benefits discriminated against federal retirees in violation of 4 U.S.C. § 111 . The United States Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Kennedy, agreed with Davis.”
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.