United States v. Herring, 7288.
Decision Date | 02 January 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 7288.,7288. |
Citation | 240 F.2d 225 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Flora F. HERRING, Administratrix of W. A. Herring Estate, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Carrington Williams, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson and A. F. Prescott, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Julian T. Gaskill, U. S. Atty., Goldsboro, N.C., and Jane A. Parker, Asst. U.S. Atty., Smithfield, N.C., on brief), for appellant.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, SOPER, Circuit Judge, and CHESNUT, District Judge.
This suit was brought by Flora F. Herring, administratrix of the estate of W. A. Herring, her deceased husband, against the United States to secure a refund of income taxes which had been paid by the estate after the decedent's death. W. A. Herring died on July 18, 1948, leaving a gross estate of $230,387.94. On July 12, 1949, the administratrix made an estate tax return showing a 1949 estate tax liability of $28,280.63, which she then paid; but in 1950 it was ascertained that there had been an overpayment of the estate tax in the sum of $13,686.90, which was thereupon refunded to the administratrix.
On July 10, 1951, after an investigation, the Commissioner issued a preliminary notice proposing a deficiency in income taxes, civil penalties for fraud, delinquency penalties and interest against the widow individually and against the estate for the years 1932 to 1948 in the amount of $103,102.28. The assessment of this tax, however, was not made until October, 1952. The tax was subsequently paid in instalments, the last payment of $18,549.72 being made on April 16, 1954. The payment of this tax greatly reduced the size of the estate and the amount of the estate tax liability. Consequently, on October 24, 1952, the administratrix filed a claim for refund of estate taxes; but the claim was rejected and the administratrix then filed suit for the refund in the District Court below. Recovery was then denied on the ground that the claim had not been filed in three years after the payment of the estate taxes as required by the statute. Subsequently in May 1955, the administratrix filed a timely claim with the Director for refund of income taxes in the amount of $13,752.77, the same amount as the claim for refund of estate taxes which had been made in the earlier litigation; and upon its rejection the instant suit was filed.
The theory of the suit is that in making its claim for refund the estate is entitled to recoup the overpayment of estate taxes against the amount of the income taxes which were paid by the administratrix after the death of the decedent. The District Judge approved this theory and gave judgment for the estate for the amount claimed under the authority of Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247, 55 S.Ct. 695, 79 L.Ed. 1421. In that case the Government wrongfully collected and retained an estate tax on monies earned and paid to the estate in partnership transactions after the decedent's death, which were not part of the corpus of the estate but were subject to tax as income. Subsequently and before the time allowed for filing a claim for refund had elapsed, the Government assessed and collected an income tax on the same money. Thereafter the administratrix filed a timely suit in the Court of Claims for refund of the income tax, contending that the Government should have credited against that tax the amount of the overpayment of the estate tax. The Court rejected the claim on the ground that it was then too late to recover for the overpayment, but the Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that under equitable principles the estate was entitled to recoup from the amount of the income tax lawfully due the amount of the estate tax unlawfully imposed, although suit to recover the unlawful tax independently had become barred. The Court said, 295 U.S. at pages 260, 261, 262, 263, 55 S.Ct. at page 700:
The taxpayer also relies on Stone v. White, 301 U.S. 532, 57 S.Ct. 851, 81 L. Ed. 1265, where testamentary trustees sued for refund of income taxes erroneously collected and the equitable principle of recoupment...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mann v. United States, CA 3-79-0136-R.
...the recoupment claim to be based directly on the transaction on which the plaintiff's claim is based. It relies on United States v. Herring, 240 F.2d 225 (4th Cir.1957), in support of the contention that, in this case, the plaintiff's claim of a bad debt deduction is "a single taxable event......
-
Mueller v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Mueller)
...The two cases on which petitioner largely relies are United States v. Bowcut, 287 F.2d 654 (9th Cir.1961) and United States v. Herring, 240 F.2d 225 (4th Cir.1957). Both these cases, like the case at hand, concerned the estate tax and the income tax, and the two taxes had not been imposed o......
-
March v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Branson)
...(7th Cir.1985), revg. 582 F.Supp. 203 (C.D.Ill.1984); Estate of Vitt v. United States, 706 F.2d 871 (8th Cir.1983); United States v. Herring, 240 F.2d 225 (4th Cir.1957); and United States v. Bowcut, 287 F.2d 654 (9th Cir.1961). In Boyle v. United States, supra, the decedent died in 1953 ow......
-
In re Carter
...may invoke setoff or equitable recoupment to overpayments against taxes owed. U.S. v. Bowcut, 287 F.2d 654 (9th Cir.1961); U.S. v. Herring, 240 F.2d 225 (4th Cir.1957). The judicial doctrine of equitable recoupment permits the government to settle refund claims for overpayment of taxes in a......