U.S. Code » Title 49 » Subtitle SUBTITLE VII— AVIATION PROGRAMS › Part PART A— AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY › Subpart subpart i— general › Chapter CHAPTER 401— GENERAL PROVISIONS

49 U.S.C. § 301

EXTENSION OF DUE DATE FOR EXCISE TAX DEPOSITS; TREATMENT OF LOSS COMPENSATION.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
“(a)Extension of Due Date for Excise Tax Deposits.—“(1)In general.—In the case of an eligible air carrier, any airline-related deposit required under section 6302 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [26 U.S.C. 6302] to be made after September 10, 2001, and before November 15, 2001, shall be treated for purposes of such Code [26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.] as timely made if such deposit is made on or before November 15, 2001. If the Secretary of the Treasury so prescribes, the preceding sentence shall be applied by substituting for ‘November 15, 2001’ each place it appears—“(A) ‘January 15, 2002’; or“(B) such earlier date after November 15, 2001, as such Secretary may prescribe.“(2)Eligible air carrier.—For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘eligible air carrier’ means any domestic corporation engaged in the trade or business of transporting (for hire) persons by air if such transportation is available to the general public.“(3)Airline-related deposit.—For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘airline-related deposit’ means any deposit of taxes imposed by subchapter C of chapter 33 of such Code [26 U.S.C. 4261 et seq.] (relating to transportation by air).“(b)Treatment of Loss Compensation.—Nothing in any provision of law shall be construed to exclude from gross income under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 any compensation received under section 101(a)(2) of this Act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 308 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1935–2023 · leading case: Save Our Sound OBX, Inc. v. NC Dept of Transp., 914 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Save Our Sound OBX, Inc. v. NC Dept of Transp., 914 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “, or the Department of Transportation Act (the "DTA"), 49 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. , when they approved the bridge.”
Am. Trucking Assns., Inc. v. United States, 344 U.S. 298 (1953). · cites it 4× “; the impact of the rules on agricultural trucking and on the guaranteed right of authorized carriers to augment their equipment; the application of the *302 Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 237 , 5 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq.”
Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Utah v. Wycoff Co., 344 U.S. 237 (1952). · cites it 2× “She is endeavoring to make respondent obtain a permit to do an interstate business for which the respondent already holds a federal permit, under threat that unless he obtains a Utah permit, Utah will stop him from conducting the interstate business.”
Thompson v. McDonald, 95 F.2d 937 (5th Cir. 1938). · cites it 10× “3, and particularly by reason of the enactment by Congress of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, 49 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq.; that for *939 several years prior to June 1, 1935, and subsequent to that date he transported various commodities from points within the state of Texas to…”
Frozen Food Express v. United States, 351 U.S. 40 (1956). · cites it 2× “543 , as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 301 et seq., grants the Commission pervasive control over motor carriers.”
California v. Zook, 336 U.S. 725 (1949). · cites it 2× “[2] 49 U.S.C. §§ 301 , 303 (b) (see note 5, infra ), 49 Stat.”
Purity Supreme, Inc. v. Attorney Gen., 407 N.E.2d 297 (Mass. 1980). “298 (1953) (Interstate Commerce Commission, under 49 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq.); National Broadcasting Co.”
Paskar v. United States Dep't of Transp., 714 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “The panel report was commissioned by the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to his general powers, 49 U.S.C. §§ 301 (1), (4), (6). It was a report of experts appointed from a number of federal, state, and city agencies.”
De Loach v. Crowley's, Inc., 128 F.2d 378 (5th Cir. 1942). · cites it 2× “Under the Rules of Civil Procedure a case consists not in the pleadings, but the evidence, for which the pleadings furnish the basis. Cases are generally to be tried on the proofs rather than the pleadings.”
Boutell v. Walling, 327 U.S. 463 (1946). · cites it 2× “919 , 49 U.S.C. § 301 , et seq. Whatever may be the precise scope of the Commission's "power to establish" hours of service, we hold that the Commission does not have that power over the men here concerned because the Commission's jurisdiction is limited to employees of…”
S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. United States, 462 F. Supp. 1193 (E.D. Cal. 1978). · cites it 2× “Cases do exist considering the question of a federal common law of liability in the context of the Motor Carrier Act, 49 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.”
Fleming v. AH Belo Corp., 121 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1941). · cites it 2× “, as to its jurisdiction under the Motor Carrier Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq., both before and after the enactment of the Wage and Hour Act.”
Show all 308 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.