United States v. Ronald E. Latham

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that under section 3401(c) the argument that “the category of ‘employee’ does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute”
• rejecting as “inane” defendant’s argument “that 26 U.S.C. § 7343 defining ‘person’ does not include natural persons”
• characterizing assertion that \employee\ does not include privately employed wage earners as \a preposterous reading of the statute\
• finding taxpayer's argument that the IRC category of \employee\ would \not include privately employed wage earners\ a \preposterous reading of the statute\
• contention that “under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of ‘employee’ does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute.”
• “Latham’s instruction which indicated that … the category of employee does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).