Lewis v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 04 January 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 115,115 |
| Citation | 284 U.S. 281,76 L.Ed. 293,52 S.Ct. 145 |
| Parties | LEWIS et al. v. REYNOLDS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. N. E. Corthell, of Laramie, Wyo., for petitioner.
The Attorney General and Mr. G. A. Young-quist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Petitioners sued the respondent Collector in the United States District Court for Wyoming, September 20, 1929, to recover $7,297.16 alleged to have been wrongfully exacted as income tax upon the estate of Cooper.
February 18, 1921, the administrator filed a return for the period January 1 to December 12, 1920, the day of final settlement. Among others, he reported deductions for attorney's fees, $20,750, and inheritance taxes paid to the State, $16,870. The amount of tax as indicated by the return was paid.
November 24, 1925, the Commissioner, having audited the return, disallowed all deductions except the one for attorney's fees and assessed a deficiency of $7,297.16. This sum was paid March 21, 1926; and on July 27, 1926, petitioners asked that it be refunded.
A letter from the Commissioner to petitioners, dated May 18, 1929, and introduced in evidence by them, stated that the deduction of $20,750 for attorney's fees had been improperly allowed. He also set out a revised computation wherein he deducted the state inheritance taxes. This showed liability greater than the total sums theretofore exacted. The Commissioner further said: 'Since the correct computation results in an additional tax as indicated above which is barred from assessment by the statute of limitations your claim will be rejected on the next schedule to be approved by the commissioner.'
The trial court upheld the Commissioner's action and its judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Counsel for petitioners relies upon the five-year statute of limitations (Revenue Act 1926, § 277 (26 USCA § 1057)).1 He maintains that the Commissioner lacked authority to redetermine and reassess the tax after the statute had run.
After referring to section 284, Revenue Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 66 (26 USCA § 1065) and section 322, Revenue Act of 1928, 45 Stat. 861 (26 USCA § 2322), the Circuit Court of Appeals said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porter v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, No. 13558–06.
...practice in Federal District Courts to conduct trials de novo in tax refund cases. See, e.g., Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 283, 52 S.Ct. 145, 76 L.Ed. 293 (1932).C. Legislative History of the APA In enacting the APA Congress expressly recognized that tax matters were the subject of de n......
-
United States v. Janis, No. 74-958
...counterclaim. In a refund suit the taxpayer bears the burden of proving the amount he is entitled to recover. Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 52 S.Ct. 145, 76 L.Ed. 293 (1932). It is not enough for him to demonstrate that the assessment of the tax for which refund is sought was erroneous i......
-
Mann v. United States, CA 3-79-0136-R.
...Davis uses the term "equitable recoupment," it apparently involved the application of the doctrine announced in Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 52 S.Ct. 145, 76 L.Ed. 293 (1932), that the government is entitled to claim a right of offset of a barred tax liability where the refund claim and......
-
Union Pac. R. Co., Inc. v. United States
...for a refund he has the burden of proving that the refund is "legally due" him. Helvering v. Taylor, supra; Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 52 S.Ct. 145, 76 L.Ed. 293 (1932). Where defendant counters with an offset claim, allocation of the burden depends on the nature of the offset. If the......
-
Choice Of Forum In Federal Excise Tax Refund Cases
...the taxpayer has the burden of proof on any IRS offset, since the taxpayer must prove that it overpaid its taxes. See Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 283 (1932: What Are the Settlement Procedures? The Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has settlement authority in cases li......
-
District Court Reiterates The Difference Between Adjustment And Assessment Of Tax
...prevent the IRS from making adjustments to tax. The court agreed with the IRS, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281 (1932). The court summarized Lewis by saying that the [IRS] is not required to refund any assessment for tax that was in fact owed. In addi......
-
Civil Tax Litigation
...601.105(e)(2). 5. See generally IRM 4.4.4 regarding the processing and examination of claims filed by taxpayers. 6. See Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281 (S. Ct. 1932). 7. I.R.C. § 6411. 8. I.R.C. § 6501(k). 9. I.R.C. § 6511(a). 10. I.R.C. § 6513(a). 11. I.R.C. § 6511(a). 12. I.R.C. § 6511(b)......
-
Federal Taxation - Timothy J. Peaden, Ben E. Muraskin, and James A. Lawton
...of the statutory period for refund." 56 F.3d at 1357. 22. 51 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 1995). 23. Id. at 1014 (citing Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, modified, 284 U.S. 599 (1932) (holding that a claim for refund involves the redetermination of the entire tax liability)). 24. Id. at 1015 (citin......
-
Federal Taxation - Michael H. Plowgian and Svetoslav S. Minkov
...v. United States, 914 F.2d 499, 501 (4th Cir. 1990); Crompton & Knowles Loom Works v. White, 65 F.2d 132, 133-34 (1st Cir. 1933). 19. 284 U.S. 281 (1932). 20. Williams-Russell, 371 F.3d at 1353 (quoting Bachner v. Commissioner, 109 T.C. 125, 130 (1997), affd, 172 F.3d 859 (3rd Cir. 1998)). ......
-
When is a tax year "closed"?
...the merits or a claim for refund at a time when the assessment period for the year of the claimed refund has expired. In Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 US 281 (1932), the Supreme Court held that the ultimate question presented in a claim for refund is whether the taxpayer has overpaid his tax. The ......
-
IL Register Volume 46, Issue 45. Issue 45 - November 4, 2022 - Pages 17,504 - 17,771
...to the extent the adjustments would reduce or eliminate a refund claimed by the taxpayer for that taxable year. (See Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281 (1932).) B) does not preclude the Department from asserting any adjustments to the amount of net loss incurred under IITA Section 207 (except ......