Ford v. United States
| Decision Date | 13 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 18291.,18291. |
| Citation | 402 F.2d 791 |
| Parties | Donald G. FORD, Transferee, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Robert J. Campbell, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellant; Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks, William A. Friedlander, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on briefs; Ernest W. Rivers, U. S. Atty., Louisville, Ky., of counsel.
S. Russell Smith, Louisville, Ky., for appellee; Kirby A. Scott, Louisville, Ky., on brief; Smith & Smith, Louisville, Ky., of counsel.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, COMBS, Circuit Judge, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.
In the taxpayer's suit for recovery of income taxes alleged to have been illegally assessed and collected, the Government did not rebut the evidence that bad debt recoveries were improperly retained in the company's income, but defended on the technical ground that there was a variance between the refund claim and the evidence and that the claim was not sufficiently specific to comply with the statute and the regulation. 26 U.S.C. 1964 ed., § 7422; 26 C.F.R., Sec. 1.11-1.
We agree with District Judge Gordon that there was no variance and that the refund claim was sufficiently specific to fairly advise the Commissioner of the nature of the taxpayer's claim. Kales v. United States, 115 F.2d 497 (6th Cir. 1940); Lucas v. Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co., 89 F.2d 945 (6th Cir. 1937); Belknap v. United States, 55 F.Supp. 90 (D.C.W.D.Ky.1944).
The Commissioner raised no question about the form of the refund claim when it was filed with him and considered it on its merits. It is too late for him now to raise technical objections as to its form. 10 Merten's Law of Federal Income Taxation § 58.19, at page 51.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MOK PARTNERS v. US, 86 C 10152.
...agree with conclusions of law as well as issues of fact. Ford v. United States, 67-2 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9546, 84,740 (W.D.Ky.1967), aff'd, 402 F.2d 791 (6th Cir.1968). Plaintiffs' computation argument did not appear in the refund claim or complaint and first appeared in their motion for summary jud......
-
McCurdy v. United States
...Title & Trust Co. v. United States, 309 U.S. 13, 60 S.Ct. 371, 84 L.Ed. 542 (1940). For what is asserted as a pro, see Ford v. United States, 402 F.2d 791 (6th Cir. 1968). This Court has concluded that these severed issues need not be decided at this time, but should await the jury trial of......
-
American Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. U.S., 78-1136
...Manufacturing Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 215 F.2d 567 (2d Cir. 1954); Ford v. United States, 67-2 T.C. P 9546 (W.D.Ky.1967), Aff'd, 402 F.2d 791 (6th Cir. 1968); National Forge & Ordnance Co. v. United States, 151 F.Supp. 937, 139 Ct.Cl. 204 (1957); T. J. West Co., Ltd. v. Rogan, 54 F.Supp. 460, 4......
-
American FINANCIAL GROUP v. USA
...led to his determination of the additional tax liability. Ford v. United States, 20 A.F.T.R.2d 5033, 5044 (W.D.Ky.1967), aff'd, 402 F.2d 791 (6th Cir.1968). The Court notes there is some ambiguity as to whether the arguments made in GALIC's formal protest of the examiner's findings are the ......