OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Code/Title 26/Chapter 24

See Cornell Law School
Title 26—Internal Revenue Code Subtitle C—Employment Taxes Chapter 24—Collection of Income Tax At Source on Wages
* Section 3401—Definitions
* Section 3402—Income tax collected at source
* Section 3403—Liability for tax
* Section 3404—Return and payment by governmental employer
* Section 3405—Special rules for pensions, annuities, and certain other deferred income
* Section 3406—Backup withholding
* Sections 3451 to 3456. Repealed.

## Amendments
### 1983

Pub. L. 98-67, title I, Secs. 102(a), 104(d)(4), Aug. 5, 1983, 97 Stat. 369, 380, added item 3406 and repealed amendments made by Pub. L. 97-248. See 1982 Amendment note below.

### 1982

Pub. L. 97-248, title III, Secs. 307(b)(4), 308(a), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 590, 591, provided that, applicable to payments of interest, dividends, and patronage dividends paid or credited after June 30, 1983, the caption of chapter 24 is amended by striking out “ON WAGES”, items for subchapters A and B are added in analysis, and heading “Subchapter A—Withholding From Wages” is added. Section 102(a), (b) of Pub. L. 98-67, title I, Aug. 5, 1983, 97 Stat. 369, repealed subtitle A (Secs. 301-308) of title III of Pub. L. 97-248 as of the close of June 30, 1983, and provided that the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 [now 1986] [this title] shall be applied and administered (subject to certain exceptions) as if such subtitle A (and the amendments made by such subtitle A) had not been enacted.
# United States Code/Title 26/Chapter 1/Subchapter N

See Cornell Law School
Title 26—Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A—Income Taxes Chapter 1—Normal Taxes and Surtaxes Subchapter N—Tax Based on Income from Sources Within or Without the United States
* (1/5) Part I—Source rules and other general rules relating to foreign income
* Part II—Nonresident aliens and foreign corporations
* Part III—Income from sources without the United States
* Part IV—Domestic international sales corporations
* Part V—International boycott determinations

## Amendments
### 1988

Pub. L. 100-647, title I, Sec. 1012(h)(2)(D), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3503, substituted "Source rules and other general rules relating to foreign income" for "Determination of sources of income" in item for part I.

### 1976

Pub. L. 94-455, title X, Sec. 1064(b), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1653, added item V.

## Note

* ↑ Editorially supplied. Part IV added by Pub. L. 92-178 without corresponding amendment of subchapter analysis.
# United States Code/Title 27

From the U.S. House of Representatives.
* Chapter 1—General Provisions (Repealed)
* Chapter 2—Prohibition of Intoxicating Beverages (Repealed, Omitted, or Transferred)
* Chapter 2a—Beer, Ale, Porter, and Similar Fermented Liquor (Repealed or Omitted)
* Chapter 3—Industrial Alcohol (Omitted)
* Chapter 4—Penalties (Repealed)
* Chapter 5—Prohibition Reorganization Act of 1930 (Repealed)
* Chapter 6—Transportation in Interstate Commerce
* Chapter 7—Liquor Law Repeal and Enforcement Act (Omitted)
* Chapter 8—Federal Alcohol Administration Act
* Chapter 9—Liquor Enforcement Act of 1936 (Repealed)
# United States Code/Title 26/Chapter 47

See codification of Subtitle D, Chapter 47 online via Cornell's Legal Information Institute (LII).
Title 26—Internal Revenue Code Subtitle D—Miscellaneous Excise Taxes Chapter 47—Certain Group Health Plans

## Amendments
### 1989

    Pub. L. 101–239 (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989), title VI, § 6202(b)(4)(A), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2233, struck out “LARGE” after “CERTAIN” in chapter heading and “large” after “Certain” in item 5000.
# United States Code/Title 26/Chapter 47/Section 5000

Title 26—Internal Revenue Code Subtitle D—Miscellaneous Excise Taxes Chapter 47—Certain Group Health Plans Section 5000—Certain group health plans

#### § 5000. Certain group health plans
   ##### (a) Imposition of tax

       There is hereby imposed on any employer (including a self-employed person) or employee organization that contributes to a nonconforming group health plan a tax equal to 25 percent of the employer's or employee organization’s expenses incurred during the calendar year for each group health plan to which the employer or employee organization contributes.

   ##### (b) Group health plan and large group health plan

       For purposes of this section—

         ##### (1) Group health plan

             The term “group health plan” means a plan (including a self-insured plan) of, or contributed to by, an employer (including a self-employed person) or employee organization to provide health care (directly or otherwise) to the employees, former employees, the employer, others associated or formerly associated with the employer in a business relationship, or their families.

         ##### (2) Large group health plan

             The term “large group health plan” means a plan of, or contributed to by, an employer or employee organization (including a self-insured plan) to provide health care (directly or otherwise) to the employees, former employees, the employer, others associated or formerly associated with the employer in a business relationship, or their families, that covers employees of at least one employer that normally employed at least 100 employees on a typical business day during the previous calendar year. For purposes of the preceding sentence—
                (A) all employers treated as a single employer under subsection (a) or (b) of section 52 shall be treated as a single employer,
                (B) all employees of the members of an affiliated service group (as defined in section 414 (m)) shall be treated as employed by a single employer, and
                (C) leased employees (as defined in section 414 (n)(2)) shall be treated as employees of the person for whom they perform services to the extent they are so treated under section 414 (n).

   ##### (c) Nonconforming group health plan

       For purposes of this section, the term “nonconforming group health plan” means a group health plan or large group health plan that at any time during a calendar year does not comply with the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (C) or subparagraph (B), respectively, of paragraph (1), or with the requirements of paragraph (2), of section 1862(b) of the Social Security Act.

   ##### (d) Government entities

       For purposes of this section, the term “employer” does not include a Federal or other governmental entity.

## References

Cornell Law School
Sec. 1862 - Social Security Act
# United States v. Illinois Central Railroad Company

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Illinois Central Railroad Company."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* United States v. Illinois Central Railroad Company (244 U.S. 82)
* United States v. Illinois Central Railroad Company (263 U.S. 515)
* United States v. Illinois Central Railroad Company (291 U.S. 457)
* United States v. Illinois Central Railroad Company (303 U.S. 239)
See also Illinois Central Railroad Company v. United States.
# United States v. Idaho

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
298 U.S. 105
United States v. Idaho
Argued: March 13, 1936. --- Decided: April 27, 1936
mS.CT691mMessrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Daniel W. Knowlton, of Washington, D.C., for the United States and Interstate Commerce Commission.
Mr. Maurice H. Greene, of Boise, Idaho, for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from page 106 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Illinois Cent Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Brewer
United States Supreme Court
154 U.S. 225
United States v. Illinois Cent Railroad Company
[Statement of Case from pages 225-227 intentionally omitted]
Sol. Gen. Maxwell, for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 227-233 intentionally omitted]
B. F. Ayers, for Railroad Cos.
John S. Miller, for city of Chicago.
Mr. Justice FIELD delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Illinois Central Railroad Company (244 U.S. 82)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
244 U.S. 82
United States v. Illinois Central Railroad Company
Argued: April 13 and 16, 1917. --- Decided: May 21, 1917
Mr. Joseph W. Folk for the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Messrs. Robert V. Fletcher and Blewett Lee for appellee.
Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Ibarra

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
502 U.S. 1
United States v. Ibarra
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
No. 90-1713
While stopped for a vehicle operating violation, respondent gave police permission to search his car, but they found nothing. However, they impounded the car because respondent had no operator's license, and they found cocaine during a subsequent search. Respondent filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence from the second search, which the Government contested on the ground that the search was conducted pursuant to his continuing consent. However, the Government abandoned this argument, and the District Court granted respondent's motion. The Government subsequently moved for reconsideration of the suppression order, again raising the consent issue, but the court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the Government's appeal as untimely, holding that the Government's motion to reconsider did not "toll" the 30-day period to appeal, which began to run on the date of the initial order. The court also held that this Court's decisions in United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75—that a motion for rehearing renders an otherwise final decision of a district court not final until it decides the motion—and United States v. Dieter, 429 U.S. 6 (per curiam)—that there is no exception to Healy 's rule for petitions for rehearing which do not assert an alleged error of law—did not control in a case where the Government's motion is based on a previously disavowed theory.
Held: The Government's appeal was timely. All motions for reconsideration are subsumed under one general rule—the rule laid down in Healy. If a merits inquiry were grafted onto the general rule, litigants would be required to guess at their peril the date on which the time to appeal commences to run. An alternative method of analysis—that the Government's motion was not a "true" motion for reconsideration because the Government did not initially urge the argument on which it based the motion—would also break down into subcategories the more general category of "motions for reconsideration" described in this Court's previous decisions.
Certiorari granted; 920 F.2d 702, vacated and remanded.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Gilliland

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
312 U.S. 86
United States v. Gilliland
Argued: Jan. 10, 1941. --- Decided: Feb 3, 1941
Messrs. Robert H. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Herbert Wechsler, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. F. W. Fischer, of Tyler, Tex., for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 87-88 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Gilman

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
347 U.S. 507
United States v. Gilman
Argued: March 10, 11, 1954. --- Decided: May 17, 1954
Mr.
Paul A. Sweeney, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. William C. Wetherbee, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Gilmore

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Gilmore."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* United States v. Gilmore (74 U.S. 491)
* United States v. Gilmore (75 U.S. 330)
* United States v. Gilmore (372 U.S. 39)
# United States v. Lewis

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Lewis."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
# United States v. Leslie Salt Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
350 U.S. 383
United States v. Leslie Salt Company
Argued: Dec. 7, 1955. --- Decided: March 5, 1956
[Syllabus from pages 383-384 intentionally omitted]
John F. Davis, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Bruce M. Casey, Jr., San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.
Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Levi

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
33 U.S. 479
United States v. Levi
APPEAL from the superior court of East Florida.
The case was submitted to the court by Mr Call, for the United States; and by Mr White, for the appellee.
Mr Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Levy

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Levy."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* United States v. Levy (38 U.S. 81)
* United States v. Levy (268 U.S. 390)
# United States v. Levy (268 U.S. 390)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
268 U.S. 390
United States v. Levy (268 U.S. 390)
Submitted on Motion to Dismiss or Affirm April 13, 1925.
Decided May 25, 1925.
Messrs.
Herbert Pope and Frank E. Harkness, both of Chicago, Ill., Benjamin M. Price, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and E. Barrett Prettyman, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 390-392 intentionally omitted]
Mr. James M. Beck, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Reports/Volume 220

* 220 U.S. 1 (1911) Virginia v. West Virginia
* 220 U.S. 37 (1911) United States v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railway Company
* 220 U.S. 45 (1911) Hipolite Egg Company v. United States
* 220 U.S. 61 (1911) Stuart Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Company
* 220 U.S. 83 (1911) In re Eastern Cherokeess
* 220 U.S. 90 (1911) Taylor v. Leesnitzer
* 220 U.S. 94 (1911) Baltimore Ohio Southwestern Railroad Company v. United States
* 220 U.S. 107 (1911) Flint v. Stone Tracy Company
* 220 U.S. 178 (1911) Eliot v. Freeman
* 220 U.S. 187 (1911) Zonne v. Minneapolis Syndicate
* 220 U.S. 214 (1911) Martinez v. International Banking Corporation
* 220 U.S. 224 (1911) Fernandez v. Perez
* 220 U.S. 233 (1911) Blanco v. Hubbard
* 220 U.S. 235 (1911) Interstate Commerce Commission v. Delaware, Lackawanna, & Western Railroad Company
* 220 U.S. 257 (1911) United States v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company
* 220 U.S. 275 (1911) United States v. Erie Railroad Company
* 220 U.S. 277 (1911) Oklahoma v. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company
* 220 U.S. 290 (1911) Oklahoma ex rel West v. Gulf Colorado
* 220 U.S. 302 (1911) Oklahoma ex rel West v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company
* 220 U.S. 307 (1911) Enriquez v. Go-Tiongco
* 220 U.S. 311 (1911) Arnett v. Reade
* 220 U.S. 321 (1911) United States v. O'Brien
* 220 U.S. 329 (1911) Hills Company v. Hoover
* 220 U.S. 338 (1911) Gavieres v. United States
* 220 U.S. 345 (1911) Vilas v. City of Manila
* 220 U.S. 364 (1911) Western Union Telegraph Company v. Lawrence
* 220 U.S. 373 (1911) Dr. Miles Medical Company v. John D. Park & Sons Company
* 220 U.S. 413 (1911) Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railway Company v. Willard
* 220 U.S. 428 (1911) Diamond Rubber Company of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Company
* 220 U.S. 446 (1911) Standard Paint Company v. Trinidad Asphalt Manufacturing Company
* 220 U.S. 462 (1911) Shawnee Sewerage Drainage Company v. Stearns
* 220 U.S. 472 (1911) Perry Company v. City of Norfolk
* 220 U.S. 481 (1911) Sac and Fox Indians of the Mississippi in Iowa v. Sac and Fox Indians of the Mississippi in Oklahoma
* 220 U.S. 491 (1911) Henry Ripley v. United States
* 220 U.S. 497 (1911) Mariano Sena v. American Turquoise Company
* 220 U.S. 502 (1911) Sperry Hutchinson Company v. Rhodes
* 220 U.S. 523 (1911) Light v. United States
* 220 U.S. 539 (1911) Ex parte Metropolitan Water Company of West Virginia
* 220 U.S. 547 (1911) United States v. Daniel J Rimer
* 220 U.S. 549 (1911) Wise v. Mills
* 220 U.S. 556 (1911) Wise v. Henkel
* 220 U.S. 559 (1911) Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railway Company v. United States
* 220 U.S. 580 (1911) Delk v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company
* 220 U.S. 590 (1911) Schlemmer v. Buffalo, Rochester, & Pittsburgh Railway Company
# United States Reports/Volume 219

* 219 U.S. 1 (1911) United States v. Press Publishing Company
* 219 U.S. 17 (1910) Atlantic Gulf Pacific Company v. Government of the Philippine Islands
* 219 U.S. 24 (1910) Title Guaranty Trust Company v. Crane Company
* 219 U.S. 35 (1910) Mobile, Jackson, & Kansas City Railroad Company v. Turnipseed
* 219 U.S. 44 (1910) Herencia v. Felix Guzman
* 219 U.S. 72 (1911) United States v. Barber
* 219 U.S. 79 (1911) Hendrix v. United States
* 219 U.S. 92 (1911) West Side Belt Railroad Company v. Pittsburgh Construction Company
* 219 U.S. 104 (1911) Noble State Bank v. Haskell
* 219 U.S. 114 (1910) Shallenberger v. First State Bank of Holstein
* 219 U.S. 121 (1911) Assaria State Bank of Assaria v. Dolley
* 219 U.S. 128 (1911) Engel v. O'Malley
* 219 U.S. 140 (1911) Kentucky Union Company v. Kentucky
* 219 U.S. 166 (1911) Spokane British Columbia Railway Company v. Washington & Great Northern Railway Company
* 219 U.S. 175 (1911) Fore River Shipbuilding Company v. Hagg
* 219 U.S. 180 (1911) United States v. Grizzard
* 219 U.S. 186 (1911) Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Riverside Mills
* 219 U.S. 209 (1910) Louisville Nashville Railroad Company v. Scott
* 219 U.S. 210 (1911) In re Gregory
* 219 U.S. 219 (1911) Bailey v. Alabama
* 219 U.S. 250 (1911) United States v. Chamberlin
* 219 U.S. 270 (1911) House v. Mayes
* 219 U.S. 285 (1911) Thomas Broadnax v. Missouri
* 219 U.S. 296 (1911) Reaves v. Ainsworth
* 219 U.S. 307 (1911) German Alliance Insurance Company v. Hale
* 219 U.S. 320 (1911) Bierce v. Waterhouse
* 219 U.S. 339 (1911) Sexton v. Dreyfus
* 219 U.S. 346 (1911) Muskrat v. United States
* 219 U.S. 363 (1911) Ex parte Harding
* 219 U.S. 380 (1911) Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt
* 219 U.S. 424 (1911) Campbell v. Weyerhaeuser
* 219 U.S. 426 (1911) Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Wass
* 219 U.S. 433 (1911) Southern Pacific Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission
* 219 U.S. 453 (1911) Chicago Rock Island Pacific Railway Company v. Arkansas
* 219 U.S. 467 (1911) Louisville Nashville Railroad Company v. Mottley
* 219 U.S. 486 (1911) Chicago Indianapolis Louisville Railway Company v. United States
* 219 U.S. 498 (1911) Southern Pacific Terminal Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission
* 219 U.S. 527 (1911) Merrimack River Savings Bank v. City of Clay Center
* 219 U.S. 537 (1911) Roughton v. Knight
* 219 U.S. 549 (1911) Chicago Burlington Quincy Railroad Company v. McGuire
* 219 U.S. 575 (1911) Noble State Bank v. Haskell
* 219 U.S. 581 (1911) Buck's Stove Range Company v. American Federation of Labor