Gordon v. United States, 45170.
| Citation | 36 F. Supp. 639,92 Ct. Cl. 499 |
| Decision Date | 03 February 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 45170.,45170. |
| Parties | GORDON v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | Court of Federal Claims |
Raymond L. Wise, of New York City (Elliott L. Biskind and William Esbitt, both of New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff.
Rawlings Ragland, of Washington, D. C., and Francis M. Shea, Asst. Atty. Gen. (E. Leo Backus, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for defendant.
Before WHALEY, Chief Justice, and LITTLETON, WHITAKER, JONES, and GREEN, Judges.
This case is before us on a demurrer to plaintiff's petition. Plaintiff alleges that he furnished original information to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue showing that the valuation of some of the assets of a certain estate were false and fraudulent and as a result of this information there was collected from said estate the sum of $1,998,000. Plaintiff sues to recover 10 percent of that amount as an informer's fee, which he claims was authorized by section 3463 of the Revised Statutes, 26 U.S.CA. Int.Rev.Code, § 3792, and was offered by Internal Revenue Circular No. 99, 5th Revision (Department Circular No. 147 of 1889).
Section 3463 of the Revised Statutes authorizes the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, "* * * to pay such sums * * * as he may deem necessary for detecting and bringing to trial and punishment persons guilty of violating the internal revenue laws, * * *." Pursuant to the authority therein granted, the Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, issued an offer of reward, which reads in part as follows: "* * * I do hereby, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, offer for information given by persons other than officers of internal revenue, * * * that shall lead to the detection and punishment of persons guilty of violating the internal revenue laws, * * such reward as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may deem suitable, but in no case exceeding 10 percent of the net amount of fines, penalties, forfeitures, and taxes, which by reason of said information shall be recovered by suit or otherwise * * *." It will be noted that the Commissioner offers to pay no definite sum. He merely offers to pay "such reward as" he "may deem suitable." There has been no offer by the Commissioner to pay any definite sum and, therefore, there has arisen no contract between the Commissioner and the plaintiff.
This case is different from Briggs v. United States, 15 Ct.Cl. 48. There the Commissioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. U.S.
...that only after the informant and the government agreed on a specific reward did a contract arise. See also Gordon v. United States, 36 F.Supp. 639, 640, 92 Ct.Cl. 499 (1941) (under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7623, no contract found between government and informant in the absence of an offer to pay a d......
-
Schein v. United States
...for information voluntarily furnished in the absence of an expressly authorized promise to pay a definite sum. Gordon v. United States, 36 F.Supp. 639, 92 Ct.Cl. 499 (1941); Katzberg v. United States, 36 F.Supp. 1023, 93 Ct.Cl. 281 (1941), cert. denied 314 U.S. 620, 62 S.Ct. 61, 86 L.Ed. 49......
-
Amsinger v. United States
...fix a specific amount as the reward. Lagermeier v. United States, 566 F.2d 1188, 214 Ct. Cl. 758, 760 (1977); Gordon v. United States, 36 F. Supp. 639, 640, 92 Ct. Cl. 499 (1941); Briggs v. United States, 15 Ct. Cl. 48, 50, 54 (1879).Merrick v. United States, 846 F.2d 725, 726 (Fed. Cir. 19......
-
Saracena v. United States, 216-74.
...do not give rise to an implied contract. See Schein v. United States, 352 F.Supp. 182, 185-186 (E.D.N.Y. 1972); Gordon v. United States, 92 Ct.Cl. 499, 36 F.Supp. 639 (1941); Katzberg v. United States, 93 Ct.Cl. 281, 36 F.Supp. 1023, cert. denied, 314 U.S. 620, 62 S.Ct. 61, 86 L.Ed. 498 For......