Mascot Oil Co v. United States United States v. Wyman, Partridge Co Heiner v. Erie Coal Coke Co

• Decision Date: 26 January 1931
• Docket Number: No. 508,No. 400,No. 416,400,416,508
• Citation: 71 Ct. Cl. 783,75 L.Ed. 444,51 S.Ct. 196,282 U.S. 434
• Parties: MASCOT OIL CO., Inc., v. UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES v. WYMAN, PARTRIDGE & CO. HEINER, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. ERIE COAL & COKE CO
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

282 U.S. 434

51 S.Ct. 196

75 L.Ed. 444

MASCOT OIL CO., Inc.,

v UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES

v. WYMAN, PARTRIDGE & CO.

HEINER, Collector of Internal Revenue,

v. ERIE COAL & COKE CO.

No. 400.

No. 416.

No. 508.

Decided Jan. 26, 1931.

No. 400:

Messrs. Theodore B. Benson and William Meyerhoff, both of Washington, D. C., and W. A. Sutherland, of Fresno, Cal., for petitioner.

Mr. Chas, B. Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.

, no 416:

The Attorney General, and Mr, Chas. B. Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.

Mr. Frank J. Albus and William Meyerhoff, both of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

No. 508:

The Attorney General and Mr. G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Mr. Robert A. Applegate, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

These actions were brought to recover the amount of taxes alleged to have been illegally collected after the expiration of the statutory period of limitation. The Government resists recovery under section 611 of the Revenue Act of 1928 (c. 852, 45 Stat. 791, 875 (26 USCA § 2611)). In No. 400, Mascot Oil Co., Inc., v. United States, the Government was successful. 42 F.(2d) 309. In No. 416, United States v. Wyman, Partridge & Co,. (Ct. Cl.) 41 F.(2d) 886, and in No. 508, D. B. Heiner, Collector of Internal Revenue, etc., v. Erie Coal & Coke Co. (C. C. A.) 42 F.(2d) 214, the decisions below were in favor of the plaintiffs. This Court granted writs of certiorari. 282 U. S. 829, 828, 832, 51 S. Ct. 84, 80, 90, 75 L. Ed. —, —, —.

In No. 400, Mascot Oil Co., Inc., v. United States, the taxpayer had made a deposit in escrow with a bank to cover the amount of the tax, but, when the collector demanded payment, it was made by the taxpayer under protest and not from the deposit. In No 508, D. B. Heiner, Collector of Internal Revenue, etc., v. Erie Coal & Coke Co., a bond had been given to secure payment of the tax. The making of the deposit in the former case, and the giving of the bond in the latter, were after the statute of limitations had run, but the taxpayer in each case insists that the statute had not thereby been waived.

We may lay that question aside, for if thre was no waiver these two cases, together with No. 416, United States v. Wyman, Partridge & Co., involve the same circumstances as those decided this day in Graham v. Goodcell, 282 U. S. 409, 51 S. Ct. 186, 75 L. Ed. 415, save that collections were made while section 1106(a) of the Revenue Act of 1926 (c. 27, 44 Stat. 9, 113) was in force.¹ That section was repealed as of the date of its passage, by section 612 of the Revenue Act of 1928 (45 Stat. 875). It is not necessary to attempt to resolve the questions raised by the ambiguous language of this section, as we are of the opinion that, from any point of view, it does not protect the taxpayers from the operation of section 611 of the Revenue Act of 1928. At the time the taxes were collected, there was no liability on the part of the taxpayers, but this was also true in the case of the petitioners in Graham v. Goodcell, supra. The Congress had constitutional authority in the circumstances set forth in section 611 of the Revenue Act of 1928 to cure the defect in administration which had resulted in the collection of the tax after the statute of limitations had run and to deny recovery to the taxpayers for the amount paid. The fact that section 1106(a) of the Revenue Act of 1926...