United States v. Steel Furniture Co., 6491.
Decision Date | 14 January 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 6491.,6491. |
Citation | 74 F.2d 744 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. STEEL FURNITURE CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Helen Carloss, of Washington, D. C. (Fred C. Wetmore, of Grand Rapids, Mich., and E. Barrett Prettyman, Ralph E. Smith, and D. Louis Bergeron, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for the United States.
G. A. Wolf, of Grand Rapids, Mich., for appellee.
Before MOORMAN, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.
In 1926 the Commissioner of Internal Revenue paid to the appellee interest, computed under section 1116 of the Revenue Act of 1926 (26 USCA § 153 note), on overpayments of taxes made by it for the taxable years 1913, 1914, 1916, and 1919. Later he computed the interest under section 1019 of the Revenue Act of 1924 (26 USCA § 153 note), and on September 27, 1929, paid the appellee the difference amounting to $375.10. Subsequently he determined that the second interest payment had been made under a mistake as to the applicable statute, and brought this action May 11, 1932, to recover it. The District Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the cause of action was barred.
The statute on which the court relied (Revenue Act 1928, § 610 26 USCA § 2610) provides:
The statute is a limitation on the right of the government to recover "any portion of an internal revenue tax (or any interest, penalty, additional amount, or addition to such tax)" erroneously refunded to a taxpayer. The appellant contends that the word "interest" in the statute, when interpreted in the light of the words with which it is associated, must be limited to interest paid by a taxpayer to the government and later refunded to the taxpayer, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
O'Gilvie v. U.S.
...is whether a refund is "made" under Sec. 6532(b) when the check is mailed or when it is received. Taxpayers cite United States v. Steel Furniture Co., 74 F.2d 744 (6th Cir.1935), for their assertion that Sec. 6532(b) must be construed liberally in their favor. That case, however, construed ......
-
NELSON SPECIALTY CORPORATION v. United States
...in Crocker First National Bank of San Francisco v. United States, D.C., 137 F.Supp. 573, which case followed United States v. Steel Furniture Co., 6 Cir., 74 F.2d 744. The proper remedial procedure for the government in attempting to recover an erroneous refund requires that it act within t......
-
CROCKER FIRST NATIONAL BANK v. United States
...may sue to recover erroneous refunds of taxes or erroneous payments of interest on refunds. 26 U. S.C. § 3746; United States v. Steel Furniture Co., 6 Cir., 1935, 74 F.2d 744. Since it is obvious that the offset claimed by the Commissioner must be the equivalent of a cause of action by the ......