42 U.S.C. § 1546
Payment of annual sums to local authorities in lieu of taxes
The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall pay from rentals annual sums in lieu of taxes to any State and/or political subdivision thereof, with respect to any real property acquired and held by him under subchapters II to VII of this chapter, including improvements thereon. The amount so paid for any year upon such property shall approximate the taxes which would be paid to the State and/or subdivision, as the case may be, upon such property if it were not exempt from taxation, with such allowance as may be considered by him to be appropriate for expenditure by the Government for streets, utilities, or other public services to serve such property. As used in this section the term “State” shall include the District of Columbia.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1948–1992 · leading case: Fed. Reserve Bank of Richmond, a United States Corp. v. City of Richmond, a Virginia Mun. Corp., 957 F.2d 134 (4th Cir. 1992).
Fed. Reserve Bank of Richmond, a United States Corp. v. City of Richmond, a Virginia Mun. Corp., 957 F.2d 134 (4th Cir. 1992). “, 42 U.S.C. § 1546 , requiring the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make payments in lieu of taxes.”
Pub. Hous. Admin. v. Bristol Twp., 146 F. Supp. 859 (E.D. Pa. 1957). “Also, the Public Housing Administrator “shall pay from rentals annual sums in lieu of taxes to any State and/or political subdivisions * * * ” and such sums shall approximate the taxes “with such allowance as may be considered by him to be appropriate for expenditure by the…”
United States v. Parkbelt Homes, Inc., 76 F. Supp. 297 (D. Maryland 1948). “2036 , 42 U.S.C.A. § 1546 , 54 Stat. 1127 , in which Congress gave its consent to the payment by the “Resettlement Administration” to local taxing authorities of sums in lieu of taxes.”
Mayor & Council of New Castle v. United States, 162 F. Supp. 243 (D. Del. 1957). “This proceeding is founded upon § 9 of the Lanham Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1546 and was instituted under a provision of the Tucker Act, 28 U.”
Yale Univ. v. Town of New Haven, 17 Conn. Supp. 166 (1950). “42 U. S. C. § 1546 . *180 Any fear, if a fax exemption is allowed in the present case, that any home or apartment house owner might be entitled to a similar tax exemption if he houses married veteran students and their families is not well founded for the reason that any such…”
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.