Sancho v. Serralles, No. 3409.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
Writing for the CourtWILSON, Circuit and PETERS and MAHONEY
Citation106 F.2d 125
PartiesSANCHO v. SERRALLES.
Docket NumberNo. 3409.
Decision Date02 August 1939

106 F.2d 125 (1939)

SANCHO
v.
SERRALLES.

No. 3409.

Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

August 2, 1939.


106 F.2d 126

William Cattron Rigby, of Washington, D. C. (B. Fernandez Garcia, of San Juan, P. R., and Nathan R. Margold, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.

David A. Buckley, Jr., of Washington, D. C. (Harvey L. Rabbitt, Arthur L. Quinn, and H. Russell Bishop, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.

Before WILSON, Circuit Judge and PETERS and MAHONEY, District Judges.

MAHONEY, District Judge.

This is an appeal by the appellant from a judgment entered April 20, 1938, by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, in which was granted the petition of the appellee that a writ of mandamus issue against the Treasurer of Puerto Rico. The facts are these:

On December 31, 1919, the taxpayer, Succession J. Serralles, paid the amount of $30,407.08 in satisfaction of its income tax for the taxable year of 1917-18. The Board of Review and Equalization subsequently reduced this amount to $14,840.20, and refunded to the taxpayer an overpayment of $15,566.88. Upon a reconsideration at the request of the taxpayer by the Board of Review and Equalization, this tax was finally fixed at $10,700.96, and the taxpayer was informed by the Treasurer in writing on September 22, 1924, that the balance of $4,139.24 would be refunded when the necessary requirements of law were complied with.

The taxpayer paid under protest the sum of $31,466.04, as its income tax for the year 1918-19. This amount was paid in two instalments, one on May 19, 1920 and the other on September 15, 1920. It was subsequently determined by the Board of Review and Equalization that there was an overpayment by the taxpayer in the sum of $6,077, which the Treasurer agreed on September 22, 1924, would be refunded upon the taxpayer's compliance with the necessary requirements of law.

Also the amount of income tax for the year 1919-20 was considered by the Board of Review and Equalization, and it found there had been an overpayment of $44,118.17. On April 9, 1924 the Treasurer wrote that this amount would be refunded upon receipt by him of the necessary forms.

106 F.2d 127
Subsequently, credits in the amount of $7,317.90 and $22,595.08 were given to the taxpayer on income taxes for the year 1923-24, which reduced the overpayment for 1919-20 to the amount of $14,151.19. These overpayments, namely, $4,139.24 for the year 1917-18, $6,077 for the year 1918-19, and $14,151.19 for the year 1919-20 were finally determined on December 18, 1924, and were left with the Treasurer by agreement to be used by the taxpayer as a credit against future taxes as they should be assessed

The taxpayer, on February 26, 1926, after the amount of $24,367.43 had been agreed upon as the amount due to the taxpayer, requested that the agreement be put into effect and that it be allowed a credit out of the funds on hand against a special income tax for the year 1924. But the Treasurer, at the request of the Auditor of Puerto Rico that no credits be allowed the taxpayer because it owed the amount of $82,346.34 plus interest to date of payment to cover final balance for uncollected income taxes for the years 1918-1919 and 1920, refused this request. The Treasurer under date of March 1, 1926 notified the taxpayer of its refusal by letter. The People of Puerto Rico in 1926 filed suit to recover the said amount of $82,346.34, in which suit final judgment was rendered against it in October, 1933.

On April 2, 1929, the taxpayer requested the computation and refund of its excess payments for the years 1917-18, 1918-19 and 1919-20 in accordance with the final award...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Bradford D. Ass'n, No. 3343.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • August 2, 1939
    ...Relations Board, 305 U.S. 197, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126, it was held: that the authority to order affirmative action did not go so far 106 F.2d 125 as to confer a punitive jurisdiction enabling the Board to inflict upon the employer any penalty it may choose because he is engaged in unfai......
  • Maine People's Alliance and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Holtrachem Manufacturing Company, Civil No. 00-69-B-C (D. Me. 12/14/2001), Civil No. 00-69-B-C.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Court (Maine)
    • December 14, 2001
    ...process and public debate at all times leading up to the suit demonstrates their diligence in seeking a remedy. See Sancho v. Serralles, 106 F.2d 125, 128 (1st Cir. 1939). For the same reason it cannot be maintained that they acquiesced to Mallinckrodt's environmental conduct. Jamesbury Cor......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Bradford Dyeing Ass, No. 588
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 20, 1940
    ...5 ordering affirmative action shall be vacated, the Board then to proceed in accordance with (the opinion passed down this day).' (106 F.2d 125.) As phrased, the decree is not clear but apparently the court vacated subdivisions (4) and (5) of the Board's order. The court's opinion did make ......
  • Sancho v. National City Bank of New York, No. 3538.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • June 28, 1940
    ...or refund, and that the performance 112 F.2d 1003 of this duty could have been compelled by mandamus. See Sancho v. Serralles, 1 Cir., 106 F.2d 125. On the other hand, the Treasurer insists that his authority under the law to allow a credit or refund of overpayments is a delegation of "......
4 cases
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Bradford D. Ass'n, No. 3343.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • August 2, 1939
    ...Relations Board, 305 U.S. 197, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126, it was held: that the authority to order affirmative action did not go so far 106 F.2d 125 as to confer a punitive jurisdiction enabling the Board to inflict upon the employer any penalty it may choose because he is engaged in unfai......
  • Maine People's Alliance and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Holtrachem Manufacturing Company, Civil No. 00-69-B-C (D. Me. 12/14/2001), Civil No. 00-69-B-C.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Court (Maine)
    • December 14, 2001
    ...process and public debate at all times leading up to the suit demonstrates their diligence in seeking a remedy. See Sancho v. Serralles, 106 F.2d 125, 128 (1st Cir. 1939). For the same reason it cannot be maintained that they acquiesced to Mallinckrodt's environmental conduct. Jamesbury Cor......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Bradford Dyeing Ass, No. 588
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 20, 1940
    ...5 ordering affirmative action shall be vacated, the Board then to proceed in accordance with (the opinion passed down this day).' (106 F.2d 125.) As phrased, the decree is not clear but apparently the court vacated subdivisions (4) and (5) of the Board's order. The court's opinion did make ......
  • Sancho v. National City Bank of New York, No. 3538.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • June 28, 1940
    ...or refund, and that the performance 112 F.2d 1003 of this duty could have been compelled by mandamus. See Sancho v. Serralles, 1 Cir., 106 F.2d 125. On the other hand, the Treasurer insists that his authority under the law to allow a credit or refund of overpayments is a delegation of "......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT