Seventh Circuit· 2/4/1985

United States v. Ronald E. Latham

Citations

754 F.2d 747
17 Fed. R. Serv. 784
55 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 846
1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 28988

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).

Judges: Cummings, Coffey, Campbell

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

46 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.