United States v. Michel Same v. Krieger

Decision Date24 February 1931
Docket NumberNos. 79,80,s. 79
CitationUnited States v. Michel Same v. Krieger, 282 U.S. 656, 51 S.Ct. 284, 75 L.Ed. 598 (1931)
PartiesUNITED STATES v. MICHEL. SAME v. KRIEGER
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

The Attorney General and Mr. G. A Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.

Mr. Donald Horne, of Washington, D. C., for respondents.

Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

These actions were brought in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. Each respondent sued to recover income taxes incorrectly determined for 1919 and paid in 1920. On defendant's motion in the nature of a general demurrer that court dismissed. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. 37 F. (2d) 38.

The sole question is whether the actions were commenced within the time allowed by Rev. St. § 3226, as amended (title 26 U. S. Code, § 156 (26 USCA § 156)).

In 1924, Michel on February 7, and Krieger on September 15, filed a claim for refund. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue by a letter dated August 17, 1925, advised Michel that his claim would be rejected and that the rejection would officially appear on the next schedule to be approved by him. The claim was rejected September 2. The Commissioner, April 2, 1925, sent a like letter to Krieger, and his claim was rejected April 20. The Commissioner did not give notice to either of them that his claim had been disallowed or of the date of disallowance until June 27, 1928. The suits were subsequently brought more than two years after the rejections and less than two years after the notices.

Section 3226 as amended provides:

'No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected * * * until a claim for refund of credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. * * * No such suit or proceeding shall be begun before the expiration of six months from the date of filing such claim unless the commissioner renders a decision thereon within that time, nor after the expiration of five years from the date of the payment of such tax * * * unless such suit or proceeding is begun within two years after the disallowance of the part of such claim to which such suit or proceeding relates. The commissioner shall within 90 days after any such disallowance notify the taxpayer thereof by mail.'

By the statute the United States waived its sovereign immunity from suit. The permission to sue is conditioned on the filing of a claim and the lapse of six months or the disallowance of the claim within that period, and is limited to not more than five years after payment of the tax, unless the claim has been disallowed and the action is commenced within two years from the disallowance.

Neither of these claims was rejected within six months after filing. And in each case more than two years elapsed after rejection before the Commissioner sent notice that the claim had been disallowed. Neither action was commenced within five years after payment of the tax or within two years after disallowance of the claim. The taxpayers contend, and the Circuit Court of Appeals held, that the permission to sue continues for two years after notice that the claims had been disallowed, and that therefore these actions were commenced within time.

As the Commissioner did not act within six months, permission to sue did not depend upon the rejection of the claim or upon the giving of the notice. By the terms of the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
159 cases
  • DuPont Glore Forgan Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 23, 1977
    ...719 (1963); Sharp & Dohme, Inc. v. United States, 144 F.2d 456, 458 (3d Cir. 1944). 39 See, e. g., United States v. Michel, 282 U.S. 656, 658, 51 S.Ct. 284, 75 L.Ed. 598 (1931); Kings County Savings Institution v. Blair, 116 U.S. 200, 205-06, 6 S.Ct. 353, 29 L.Ed. 657 (1886); United States ......
  • McKeehan v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • February 19, 1971
    ... ... The Government can no longer prosecute McKeehan for the same offense ...         On February 4, 1970, the District Court, in its memorandum, entered ... ...
  • King v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • February 16, 1968
    ...980 (1906); Eastern Transportation Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 675, 47 S.Ct. 289, 71 L.Ed. 472 (1927); United States v. Michel, 282 U.S. 656, 51 S.Ct. 284, 75 L.Ed. 598 (1931). If Congress had intended to extend the scope of this court\'s jurisdiction and subject the United States to the......
  • Simmons v. United States, 3882.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • April 7, 1954
    ...United States in any case not clearly within the terms of the statute by which it consents to be sued." United States v. Michel, 282 U.S. 656, 659, 51 S.Ct. 284, 285, 75 L.Ed. 598; McCrae v. Johnson, D.C.D.Md., 84 F.Supp. 220, at pages 221, 222, and see opinion by Chief Justice Marshall in ......
  • Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles
  • Electronic waste control legislation: observations on a new dimension in state environmental regulation.
    • United States
    • Air Force Law Review No. 58, March 2006
    • March 22, 2006
    ...be implied but must be unequivocally expressed") (citing Soriano v. United States, 352 U.S. 270, 276 (1957)); United States v. Michael, 282 U.S. 656, 659 (1931) ("[I]t is also well established that suit may not be maintained against the United States in any case not clearly within the terms......
  • Faa v. Cooper. Bombarding the Privacy Act With the "canon of Sovereign Immunity"
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 64-3, March 2013
    • Invalid date
    ...United States remains the subject of considerable academic debate.").59. 272 U.S. 675 (1927).60. Id. at 686.61. United States v. Michel, 282 U.S. 656, 659 (1931) (citing E. Transp. Co., 272 U.S. at 686; Price v. U.S., 174 U.S. 373, 375-76 (1899)) ("But it is also well established that suit ......