« 이전계속 »
(3) The Commissioner's certificate that assessment should
be under sec. 210 is binding in the absence of evidence impeaching his conclusion; and the taxpayer is entitled to
recover the overpayment so found by the Commissioner. 2. There are clear and important differences between the provisions
for special assessments made by sec. 210 of the Revenue Act of 1917, and those made by sec. 327 (d) of the Revenue Act
of 1918. Mr. JUSTICE CARDOZO delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court.
UNITED STATES v. MEMPHIS COTTON OIL CO.
[75 C.Cls. 195; 288 U.S. 62]
Certiorari to review a judgment for overpayment of income tax.
Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the court below. Upon certiorari the judgment was affirmed, January 9, 1933, the Supreme Court deciding : 1. A claim for a tax refund which has been seasonably filed, but
which fails to conform to Treasury Regulations in that it omits to state the grounds upon which the refund is demanded, may be amended by specifying the grounds at any time before the claim in its original form has been finally rejected, though it be after the time when a wholly new claim would be barred by limitation.
So held under sec. 1318, Revenue Act of 1921, as amended March 4, 1923, which provides that no suit for recovery shall be maintained in any court until a claim for refund has been duly filed with the Commissioner“ according to the provisions of law in that regard and the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury established in pursuance thereof"; where the regulation required that “all the facts relied upon in support of the claim should be clearly set forth under the oath"; and where the claim, originally exhibiting only the taxpayer's statement of amounts of net income, tax, previous payments and overpayment, was amended, before its final rejection on that ground, so that it set forth in detail the facts showing overassessment as they had been revealed by the Bureau's own
investigation, 2. Rulings as to what amendments of pleadings may (or may not)
by relation avoid the bar of an intervening limitation, and as to what, in that connection, is but a revised statement of the same
cause of action and what the substitution of a new one, furnish helpful analogies, though subordinate to administrative considerations, in dete ining the effect of an amendment of a
claim for refund before the Commissioner. 3. To give effect by relation to the amendment here in question har
monizes with the Commissioner's practice of reauditing returns when refunds are claimed (Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281), and particularly with his action in entertaining the original claim (instead of rejecting it promptly for defect of form), examining completely the taxpayer's business, and announcing
that the overassessments so found would be rectified. 4. The function of a statute limiting the time within which claims
may be presented is to give protection against stale demands; the function of a regulation making provision as to the form of claims is to facilitate research; the line dividing the two
functions should be kept a sharp one. 5. Notice by the Deputy Commissioner to a taxpayer that his claim
for refund would be rejected and that the rejection would be officially announced in a schedule to be approved thereafter,
held, not a final rejection. Mr. JUSTICE CARDOZO delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court.
See Contracts, VIII, XI, XX, XXIV; Pay, VI; Taxes IV.
I. In any form of remedy, legal or equitable, an insurer can
take nothing by subrogation but the right of the
Sanday & Co., 370.
under the suits in admiralty act is exclusive, and the
place of business in the United States. Id.
See Pay, VII, X; Rental and Subsistence Allowances, VIII, IX.
See Patents, X.
I. Where a party contracted to manufacture booster casings
for the Government the material for which was to be
Government. National Metal Moulding Co., 194.
to the Government for cold storage, for compensation,
Government. Compton, 278.
See Contracts, V, VII, XVIII, XXVI, XXVII, XXIX.
See Bailment, II; Fraud, II; Taxes, IV.
A compromise is valid if the parties considered the subject matter
of the compromise doubtful, irrespective of whether the matter
was in fact doubtful in legal contemplation. Presumption of
knowledge of law cannot be relied upon to invalidate a compro-
had knowledge of its invalidity. Trumbull Steel Co., 391.
See also Contracts, XIX; Taxes, XII, XIII, XIV.
See Taxes, XII, XIII, XIV.
I. Where the subject matter of a claim referred to the
Court of Claims by resolution of one of the Houses of
will be so treatedFarmers and Ginners Oil Co., 294.
plaintiff in a case has been transmitted to Congress,
Pocono Pines Assembly Hotels Co., 334.
See Congressional Reference, II; Contracts, XVII; Patents, X;
Pay, I; Sesquicentennial Expenses; Taxes, VIII.
I. Where a construction contract authorizes the Govern-
ment contracting officer to make changes, such author-
work. Pope, 64.
his contract, makes excavations according to lines and
for defective work by the mere fact that the perfor-
and inspection. Id.
materials of a contract site in drawings furnished pro-