United States v. Peters, 5003
| Decision Date | 14 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 5003,5004.,5003 |
| Citation | 220 F.2d 544 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Chas. B. PETERS, Appellee. UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Jessie M. PETERS, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Dudley J. Godfrey, Jr., Washington, D. C. (H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, Lee A. Jackson, Laurence S. Fordham, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., Paul W. Cress, U. S. Atty., Perry, Okl., and Leonard L. Ralston, Asst. U. S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., were on the brief), for appellant.
Remington Rogers, Tulsa, Okl., for appellees.
Before BRATTON and PICKETT, Circuit Judges, and VAUGHT, District Judge.
Where the last day of the statutory period for the filing of a claim for refund of an asserted overpayment of income tax falls on Sunday, may the claim be filed on the succeeding Monday? That is the question presented for determination in these consolidated cases.
Section 322(b) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C.1952 ed. § 322(b) (1), provides in presently pertinent part that unless a claim for refund is filed by the taxpayer within three years from the time the return was filed or within two years from the time the tax was paid, no credit or refund shall be allowed or made after the expiration of whichever of such periods expires the later; and section 3772(a) (1), 26 U.S.C. 1952 ed. § 3772(a) (1), provides in presently material part that 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 or in any manner wrongfully collected until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner, according to the provisions of law in that regard.
Charles B. Peters and Jessie M. Peters were granted an extension of time until July 15, 1948, for the filing of their income tax returns for the calendar year 1947. On July 15, 1948, they filed their returns and paid the tax due as reflected in such returns, together with the accrued interest thereon. The taxpayers resided at Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Oklahoma maintained offices for the transaction of his official business both in Tulsa and Oklahoma City. Neither of such offices was open for the receipt of claims for refund on Sundays. And July 15, 1951, fell on Sunday. On Saturday, the taxpayers each executed in proper form a claim for refund of the portion of the tax for the year 1947 assertedly paid through error. The claims were mailed at Tulsa late Saturday afternoon, addressed to the Collector at Oklahoma City; and in the ordinary course of mail a claim so mailed would have arrived at the post office in Oklahoma City on Sunday morning. There were five dispatches per Sunday of mail from Tulsa to Oklahoma City. The Collector did not collect his mail during the day Sunday. On Monday, July 16, he called at the post office and obtained the mail which had been placed in his box or drawer since the close of business on the preceding Friday. The claims of these taxpayers were included in such mail. The claims were rejected and these suits were filed to recover the refunds. The United States defended on the ground that the claims were not filed within the time allowed by law. The court entered judgment for the taxpayer in each case, and the United States appealed.
The cases are relatively narrow in compass. The depositing of the claims for refund in the post office in time for them to reach the post office box or drawer of the Collector in due course of mail before the expiration of the time fixed by law for the filing of such claims did not constitute a filing of them. They were not filed within the intent and meaning of section 322 of the Internal Revenue Code until they reached the Collector on Monday, July 16. United States v. Lombardo, 241 U.S. 73, 36 S.Ct. 508, 60 L.Ed. 897; Poynor v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 81 F.2d 521; Stebbins' Estate v. Helvering, 74 App.D.C. 21, 121 F.2d 892; Central Paper Co. v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 199 F.2d 902; Hilker & Bletsch Co. v. United States, 7 Cir., 210 F.2d 847.
Section 322, supra, fixes two periods of time within which claims for refund of income tax must be filed. One period is three years from the filing of the return. The other is two years from the payment of the tax. And in every...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sorrentino v. I.R.S.
...is a rebuttable presumption of fact that it was received by the addressee in the ordinary course of mail." Id. In United States v. Peters, 220 F.2d 544 (10th Cir.1955), however, we rejected application of the mailbox rule in a tax refund suit without citing Crude Oil. Instead, we applied th......
-
In re Pizzuto
...v. Peters, applied this "physical delivery rule" to a tax refund suit, rejecting application of the common law mailbox rule.2 220 F.2d 544, 545 (10th Cir.1955). Under Lombardo and Peters, Taxpayers were deemed late filers if their documents were received by the IRS after the due date, even ......
-
In re John Pizzuto, Case No. 06-15673 (NLW) (D.N.J. 3/20/2008)
...v. Peters, applied this "physical delivery rule" to a tax refund suit, rejecting application of the common law mailbox rule.2 220 F.2d 544, 545 (10th Cir. 1955). Under Lombardo and Peters, Taxpayers were deemed late filers if their documents were received by the IRS after the due date, even......
-
Easter Seal Soc. for Disabled Children v. Berry
...judge's brief order did not explain his ruling or which of appellees' contentions he was adopting. 2 But see United States v. Peters, 220 F.2d 544, 545-46 (10th Cir.1955) (where federal statute required a claim for a tax refund to be asserted within three years from the date of filing and t......