United States v. Havner
Citation | 101 F.2d 161 |
Decision Date | 31 January 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 11257.,11257. |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. HAVNER. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Louise Foster, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen. (James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key, J. Louis Monarch, and Lester L. Gibson, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., E. G. Moon, U. S. Atty., of Des Moines, Iowa, and C. I. Level, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Denison, Iowa, on the brief), for appellant.
B. J. Flick, of Des Moines, Iowa, for appellee.
Before SANBORN, WOODROUGH, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The Government, on September 24, 1936, brought this action at law to recover unpaid income taxes for the year 1920 and the years 1923 to 1927, inclusive, assessed against H. M. Havner. After the case was at issue, it was, on motion of the taxpayer, transferred to the equity docket. It was tried to the court upon a stipulation of facts on November 30, 1937. The amounts and the validity of the assessments were not challenged, and the only controversy was as to whether their collection was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The court reached the conclusion that the 1920 tax was barred on April 11, 1937; that the 1923 tax was barred on January 24, 1938; that the 1924, 1925 and 1926 taxes were barred on September 16, 1936, and that the 1927 tax was barred on May 25, 1937. A decree was entered on December 18, 1937, providing as follows:
The effect of this decree was to give the Government unenforceable judgments for the taxes for the years 1920 and 1927, and a judgment for the taxes for 1923 unenforceable after January 24, 1938, and to dismiss the Government's petition as to the taxes for other years. The Government has appealed.
Stated briefly, the facts of this case are as follows: The taxes in suit were all assessed between July 13, 1929, and November 21, 1931. On December 17, 1931, the taxpayer submitted to the Government an offer in compromise of all of the assessments, which offer contained a waiver of the statute of limitations reading as follows:
"* * * the taxpayer hereby expressly waives —
* * * * * *
This offer in compromise was rejected on June 27, 1932. On January 31, 1933, the taxpayer made another offer in compromise containing a similar waiver. This offer was rejected on August 4, 1933. On February 16, 1935, the taxpayer submitted a third offer in compromise which contained a waiver reading as follows:
"* * * the proponent hereby expressly waives:
* * * * * *
This offer was rejected on April 19, 1935.
The applicable statute of limitations is § 276(c) of Title 26, U.S.C., 26 U.S.C.A. § 276(c), which reads as follows:
All of the waivers here involved were made before the expiration of the six-year period, and their validity is not challenged.
The Government contends that the effect of the three separate waivers was cumulative and served to extend the six-year period for the collection of the taxes by two years, two months, and seventeen days; the first waiver tolling the statute for six months and ten days; the second, for six months and four days; and the third, for fourteen months and three days.
The taxpayer, on the other hand, contends that the first and second waivers cannot be considered as having tolled the statute, because they were superseded by the third waiver which extended the period of limitation for fourteen months and three days beyond the six-year period.
The court below was of the opinion that the period of limitation was extended by the third waiver for the period of fourteen months and three days, and that the first and second waivers were superseded by the third. D.C., 21 F.Supp. 985. If the court was correct in that regard, the collection of the taxes for all of the years except 1920, 1923 and 1927 was barred when this action was begun. If the contention of the Government is correct that the statute of limitations was tolled during the three periods when the three offers of compromise were under submission and consideration, then the action was commenced in time.
We think that the Government's contention must be sustained. The purpose of giving a waiver in connection with an offer in compromise is to enable the Government to consider the offer without suffering prejudice because of the running of the statute of limitations against collection of the tax while the offer is being considered. The taxpayer, in submitting such an offer and waiver, in effect requests the Government to withhold attempts to collect the tax while the offer is pending, and, in consideration of this forbearance on the part of the Government, consents to forego the benefit of having the statute of limitations run while his offer of settlement is pending. United States v. Fischer, 2 Cir., 93 F.2d 488, 489. Compare United States v. John Barth Co., 279 U.S. 370, 376, 49 S.Ct. 366, 73 L.Ed. 743.
This Court, in United States v. Southern Lumber Co., 8 Cir., 51 F.2d 956, 960, said with reference to such waivers:
.
In construing such waivers, the courts generally give effect to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Damsky v. Zavatt
...as a basis for holding that "debt" in the priority statute, Rev.Stat. § 3466, 31 U.S.C.A. § 191, includes taxes); United States v. Havner, 8 Cir., 1939, 101 F.2d 161, 165 (stating that no harm was done by trying the case in equity, since no one objected, but that it was properly an "action ......
-
United States v. Sullivan
...until it is rejected, plus thirty days following the rejection. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6331(i)(5), (k)(1)5 ; see also United States v. Havner, 101 F.2d 161, 163 (8th Cir. 1939) ("The taxpayer, in submitting such an offer and waiver, in effect requests the Government to withhold attempts to collec......
-
In re Bowen
...The purpose of the act was to fix the time beyond which steps to enforce the collection might not be initiated. United States v. Havner, 8 Cir., 1939, 101 F.2d 161. It has been similarly held under earlier Revenue Acts providing for like limitations of actions. Aiken v. Burnet, 1931, 282 U.......
-
Shambaugh v. Scofield, 10298.
...51 S.Ct. 145, 75 L.Ed. 335; Florsheim Bros. Dry Goods Co. v. United States, 280 U.S. 453, 50 S.Ct. 215, 74 L. Ed. 542. 6 United States v. Havner, 8 Cir., 101 F.2d 161; Helvering v. Ethel D. Co., 63 App.D.C. 157, 70 F.2d 761, 7 Stearns Co. v. United States, 291 U. S. 54, 54 S.Ct. 325, 78 L.E......