Rosenman v. United States
| Citation | 65 S.Ct. 536,89 L.Ed. 535,323 U.S. 658 |
| Decision Date | 29 January 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 207,207 |
| Parties | ROSENMAN et al. v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Charles Angulo, of New York City for petitioners.
Mr. Chester T. Lane, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
This is an action upon a claim for refund of a federal estate tax, and the specific question before us is whether the claim was asserted too late. The matter is governed by § 319(b) of the Revenue Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 9, 84, § 810(a) of the Revenue Act of 1932, 47 Stat. 169, 283, 26 U.S.C. § 910, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 910, reading as follows:
Petitioners are executors of the will of Louis Rosenman, who died on December 25, 1933. Under appropriate statutory authority, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue extended the time for filing the estate tax return to February 25, 1935. But there was no extension of the time for payment of the tax which became due one year after the decedent's death, on December 25, 1934. The day before, petitioners delivered to the Collector of Internal Revenue a check for $120,000, the purpose of which was thus defined in a letter of transmittal: 'We are delivering to you herewith, by messenger, an Estate check payable to your order, for $120,000, as a payment on account of the Federal Estate tax. * * * This payment is made under protest and duress, and solely for the purpose of avoiding penalties and interest, since it is contended by the executors that not all of this sum is legally or lawfully due.' This amount was placed by the Collector in a suspense account to the credit of the estate. In the books of the Collector the suspense account concerns moneys received in connection with federal estate taxes and other miscellaneous taxes if, as here, no assessment for taxes is outstanding at the time. On February 25, 1935, petitioners filed their estate tax return according to which there was due from the estate $80,224.24. On March 28, 1935, the Collector advised petitioners that $80,224.24 of the $120,000 to their credit in the suspense account had been applied in satisfaction of the amount of the tax assessed under their return. On the basis of this notice, petitioners, on March 26, 1938, filed a claim for $39,775.76, the balance between the $120,000 paid by them under protest and the assessed tax of $80,224.24.
Upon completion, after nearly three years, of the audit of the return, the Commissioner determined that the total net tax due was $128,759.08. No appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals having been taken, a deficiency of $48,534.84 was assessed. The Collector thereupon applied the balance of $39,775.76 standing to the credit of petitioners in the suspense account in partial satisfaction of this deficiency, and on April 22, 1938, petitioners paid to the Collector the additional amount of $10,497.34, which covered the remainder of the deficiency plus interest. The Commissioner then rejected the petitioners' claim for refund filed in March of that year. On May 20, 1940, petitioners filed with the Collector a claim, based on additional deductions, for refund of $24,717.12. The claim was rejected on the ground, so far as now relevant, that the tax claimed to have been illegally exacted had been paid more than three years prior to the filing of the claim, except at to the amount of $10,497.34 paid by petitioners in 1938. Petitioners brought this suit in the Court of Claims which held that recovery for the amount here in dispute was barred by statute, 53 F.Supp. 722, 101 Ct.Cl. 437. To resolve an asserted conflict of decisions in the lower courts we brought the case here. 323 U.S. 691, 65 S.Ct. 52.
Claims for tax refunds must conform strictly to the requirements of Congress. A claim for refund of an estate tax 'alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected must be presented to the Commissioner within three years next after the payment of such tax.' On the face of it, this requirement is couched in ordinary English, and since no extraneous relevant aids to construction have been called to our...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American-Foreign Steamship Corp. v. United States
...appeal by a letter from appellants' counsel which thoroughly discussed the point and cited the court to Rosenman v. United States, 323 U.S. 658, 65 S.Ct. 536, 89 L.Ed. 535. In its petition for rehearing in Sword Line, the appellant made essentially the same argument but in somewhat more gen......
-
CIR v. Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc.
...Corp. v. C. I. R., 2 Cir., 215 F.2d 518, modified on other grounds 349 U.S. 237, 75 S.Ct. 736, 99 L.Ed. 1029; Rosenman v. United States, 323 U.S. 658, 65 S.Ct. 536, 89 L.Ed. 535; Arheit v. C. I. R., 31 T.C. 2 Columbus & Southern Ohio Elec. Co. v. C. I. R., 26 T.C. 722, affirmed per curiam 6......
-
Charlson Realty Company v. United States
...to by the judiciary." Kavanagh v. Noble, 332 U.S. 535, 539, 68 S.Ct. 235, 237, 92 L.Ed. 150 (1947); see Rosenman v. United States, 323 U.S. 658, 661, 65 S.Ct. 536, 89 L.Ed. 535 (1945); Tolerton & Warfield Co. v. United States, 285 F.2d 124, 125, 126, 152 Ct.Cl. 402, 404, 406 (1961); Melchio......
-
Bachner v. C.I.R., 95-7121
...Court that must determine the fact of overpayment and the amount. The two cases on which Bachner relies, Rosenman v. United States, 323 U.S. 658, 65 S.Ct. 536, 89 L.Ed. 535 (1945), and Cohen v. United States, 995 F.2d 205 (Fed.Cir.1993), holding that a "deposit" is to be refunded upon untim......
-
The Benefits And Potential Pitfalls Of Making A Tax Deposit
...Life v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 781, 796 (2010) 26 Baral v. United States, 528 US 431, 439 n.2 (2000) 27 Rosenman v. United States, 323 US 658, 662-63 (1945) 28 See IRC section 6603. 29 See Rosenman v. United States, 323 US 658, 662-63 (1945) 30 Id. at 662-63. 31 Id. 32 See New York Life......
-
Practical advice on current issues.
...to run because the remittance was merely a deposit to suspend interest from accruing and not a payment of the tax liability (Rosenman, 323 U.S. 658, 660 (1945)). Since Rosenman, courts have developed and applied a "facts and circumstance" test to determine whether a remittance was a deposit......
-
Tax Court's decision in Risman gives hope for some refunds previously thought barred by SOL.
...remittance constitutes a payment for purposes of the SOL on refunds and credits has been an area of considerable controversy. in Rosenman, 323 US 658 (1945), the Supreme Court held that a tax is paid when the taxpayer intends that a remittance satisfy what the taxpayer regards as an existin......