DONALD G. FORD, TRANSFEREE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the taxpayer's refund claim was sufficiently specific and that there was no variance between the claim and the evidence presented.
A taxpayer sued for recovery of income taxes, alleging improper retention of bad debt recoveries. The government argued the refund claim was too vague…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
In the taxpayer’s suit for recovery of income taxes alleged to have been illegally assessed and collected, the Government did not rebut the evidence that bad debt recoveries were improperly retained in the company’s income, but defended on the technical ground that there was a variance between the refund claim and the evidence and that the claim was not sufficiently specific to comply with the statute and the regulation. 26 U.S.C. 1964 ed., § 7422; 26 C.F.R., Sec. 1.11-1.
We agree with District Judge Gordon that there was no variance and that the refund claim was sufficiently specific to fairly advise the Commissioner of the nature of the taxpayer’s claim. Kales v. United States, 115 F. 2d 497 (6th Cir. 1940); Lucas v. Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co., 89 F. 2d 945 (6th Cir. 1937); Belknap v. United States, 55 F.Supp. 90 (D.C.W.D.Ky.1944).
The Commissioner raised no question about the form of the refund claim when it was filed with him and considered it on its merits. It is too late for him now to raise technical objections as to its form. 10 Merten’s Law of Federal Income Taxation § 58.19, at page 51.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. v. United States, 594 F.2d 1141 (7th Cir. 1979)
-
Union Commerce Bank v. United States, 638 F.2d 962 (6th Cir. 1981)
Authorities Cited
- Kales v. United States, 115 F.2d 497 (6th Cir. 1940)
- Lucas v. Fid. & Columbia Tr. Co., 89 F.2d 945 (6th Cir. 1937)