UNITED STATES
v.
KIMBALL
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.
In a suit against a tax collector for uncollected taxes on his bond, the Supreme Court held that a collector is entitled to credit for taxes transferred to his successor if he exercised due diligence in collection efforts, and that rejection of a credit claim by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue constitutes sufficient presentation to treasury accounting officers to allow the collector to prove his claim as a defense in suit. The Court affirmed that while the Commissioner's certificate is required before the First Comptroller grants credit administratively, it is not a prerequisite to raising the defense in litigation.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
In a suit against a collector of internal revenue on his bond for a balance of taxes charged to him under the provisions of sect. 3218, Rev. Stat., he is entitled to a credit for all uncollected taxes transferred by him to his successor in office, if he proves that due diligence was used by him for their collection. The certificate of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue Is a condition precedent to a credit by the First Comptroller of the Treasury before suit, but not to a defence upon the facts if a suit is brought.
The presentation to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue by a collector of a claim for credit in his account, and its rejection by him, is such a presentation of the claim “ to the accounting officers of the treasury for their examination,” and disallowance by them, as will permit the collector, under sect. 951, Rev. Stat., to make proof of his claim in a suit brought against him by the United States to. collect what is due from him on his account.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States Ex rel. Skinner & Eddy Corp. v. McCarl, 275 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1927)…an show disallqwanee by the appropriate- accounting officers. But § 951 does not prescribe who the appropriate officer is or that the claim must be presented to a general accounting officer of the Government. As was held in United States v. Kimball, 101 U. S. 726, the requirement of the section is satisfied when the claim is presented and disallowed by the officer who has power to allow the claim, although he is not a general accounting officer of the Government. Thé Court of Appeals of the District' based…
-
United States v. Nat'l City Bank of N.Y., 83 F.2d 236 (2d Cir. 1936)…this set-off. Set-offs against the sovereign United States have been allowed where it was plaintiff. United States v. Wilkins, 6 Wheat.(19 U.S.) 135, 5 L.Ed. 225; United States v. MacDaniel, 7 Pet. (32 U.S.) 1, 8 L.Ed. 587; United States v. Kimball, 101 U.S. 726, 25 L.Ed. 835; United States v. Ringgold, 8 Pet. (33 U.S.) 150, 8 L.Ed. 899. The Supreme Court has held, independently of any statute, that, where the sovereign brings a suit, it submits to the application of the same principles which govern privat…