Talk About Network



Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Science Fiction > Fandom > Re: PEX (was R...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 34 of 57 Topic 6406 of 6819
Post > Topic >>

Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)

by mike weber <fairportfan@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Mar 29, 2008 at 07:35 AM

On 27 Mar 2008 21:13:58 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>mike weber <fairportfan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> It's illegal to open cigarette packs wrong?  I'm no fan of Nazis --
>>> or of cigarettes -- but this just isn't right.
>
>> At the time, the little bit of blue paper across the top of a
>> cigarette poack was a federalk tax stamp, and, technically, you were
>> supposed to destroy it when you opened the pack.  (The same applies
>> to the federal tax stamps on liquor bottles, too.)
>
>Do you have a cite?  I collect absurd laws, but I like to have a cite
>for them.
>
Well..., http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/1955/revrul55-722.htm,
where
i find the following"

[quote]

Section 5703(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 provides that
stamps may be prescribed to evidence the tax or indicate compliance
with chapter 52 of the Code relating to the tax on tobacco, cigars,
cigarettes, and cigarette papers and tubes. Section 5752 thereof
provides that no person shall (1) empty and package without destroying
the stamp; (2) remove, or cause to be removed, any such stamp, or
purchase, receive, possess, sell, or dispose of, by gift or otherwise,
any such stamp which has been so removed; or (3) purchase, receive,
possess, sell, or dispose of, by gift or otherwise, any such package
which has been emptied, upon which the stamp has not been destroyed. 

Under the Regulations relating to Cigars and Cigarettes
(Manufacturers, Importers, and Dealers) and the Regulations relating
to Manufactured Tobacco (Manufacturers, Importers, and Dealers)
implementing the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, such
stamps are issued for sale solely to manufacturers and importers
liable to pay Federal tax on tobacco products for the purpose of
denoting payment of such tax. The regulations require that every
package containing cigars, cigarettes, or manufactured tobacco must
bear a warning reading `Law forbids the reuse of the Federal stamps
hereon and requires the person who empties this package to destroy
such stamps when the package is emptied.' 

In view of the above requirements of the law and regulations, no
person may keep in his possession a tobacco products tax stamp which
has been used to denote payment of tax on such products once the
package has been emptied. Further, the acquisition of new or unused
stamps as a collector's or philatelic item is contrary to the intent
of the law and regulations governing the sale, issuance, and use of
such stamps, and is not permitted

[end quote]

Tooka while to find that...




 57 Posts in Topic:
Re: Not always joking, it seems
dbell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-03-07 11:28:33 
PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
Joe Ellis <synthfilker  2008-03-08 02:58:09 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
Jette <bosslady@[EMAIL  2008-03-08 09:40:44 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
Joe Ellis <synthfilker  2008-03-08 15:04:47 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
mike weber <fairportfa  2008-03-25 23:42:24 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Keith F. Lynch"  2008-03-08 12:58:23 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Karl Johanson"  2008-03-08 19:16:52 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
Joe Ellis <synthfilker  2008-03-08 15:00:32 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Keith F. Lynch"  2008-03-08 16:24:06 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
Joe Ellis <synthfilker  2008-03-09 04:31:47 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Keith F. Lynch"  2008-03-09 23:47:25 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
Joe Ellis <synthfilker  2008-03-10 17:47:36 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
tmcd@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (  2008-03-10 23:02:20 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
wdstarr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-03-10 21:59:18 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Keith F. Lynch"  2008-03-10 20:19:13 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
mike weber <fairportfa  2008-03-25 23:51:44 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Keith F. Lynch"  2008-03-26 00:03:33 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
Kip Williams <kiptw@[E  2008-03-26 08:24:56 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Keith F. Lynch"  2008-03-26 22:27:19 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
Kip Williams <kiptw@[E  2008-03-26 23:04:03 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
mike weber <fairportfa  2008-03-25 23:47:32 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Jay E. Morris"  2008-03-10 01:38:43 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Keith F. Lynch"  2008-03-09 22:54:31 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
David Harmon <source@[  2008-03-09 21:25:20 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Keith F. Lynch"  2008-03-10 22:29:11 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
David Harmon <source@[  2008-03-11 13:12:25 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
Sean O'Hara <seanohara  2008-03-10 18:17:15 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Keith F. Lynch"  2008-03-10 19:59:34 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
rkshullat@[EMAIL PROTECTE  2008-03-11 00:32:13 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
mike weber <fairportfa  2008-03-26 00:19:49 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Keith F. Lynch"  2008-03-26 23:18:04 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
mike weber <fairportfa  2008-03-27 06:57:02 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Keith F. Lynch"  2008-03-27 21:13:58 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
mike weber <fairportfa  2008-03-29 07:35:45 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Keith F. Lynch"  2008-03-29 15:05:03 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
Sean O'Hara <seanohara  2008-03-30 15:46:11 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Keith F. Lynch"  2008-03-30 16:11:02 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Jay E. Morris"  2008-03-30 21:53:48 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Keith F. Lynch"  2008-03-30 18:31:35 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
Doug Wickstrom <nimshu  2008-03-30 22:32:36 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Keith F. Lynch"  2008-03-30 23:55:29 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
Sean O'Hara <seanohara  2008-03-31 13:28:20 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
Sean O'Hara <seanohara  2008-03-31 13:40:20 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
Doug Wickstrom <nimshu  2008-03-31 16:05:55 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Jay E. Morris"  2008-04-01 23:41:36 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
Sean O'Hara <seanohara  2008-03-31 13:06:01 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Keith F. Lynch"  2008-03-31 19:05:49 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
Kip Williams <kiptw@[E  2008-03-31 19:40:16 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
Sean O'Hara <seanohara  2008-04-01 13:54:30 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
David Friedman <ddfr@[  2008-04-01 12:18:44 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Keith F. Lynch"  2008-04-02 21:14:03 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
mike weber <fairportfa  2008-04-01 00:11:29 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Jay E. Morris"  2008-03-12 03:27:36 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
mike weber <fairportfa  2008-03-25 23:55:11 
Re: PEX (was Re: Not always joking...)
"Keith F. Lynch"  2008-03-26 23:26:51 
Re: Not always joking, it seems
mike weber <fairportfa  2008-03-25 23:08:41 
Re: Not always joking, it seems
Doug Wickstrom <nimshu  2008-03-28 16:17:43 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan13V112 Tue May 13 16:37:36 CDT 2008.