MAGEE
v.
UNITED STATES
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 1921, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed Magee an additional 1916 income tax outside the usual three-year limitation period, but the assessment was valid under a savings clause in the 1921 Revenue Act; when Magee later filed suit for refund of the tax he paid, the Supreme Court affirmed dismissal under section 611 of the 1928 Revenue Act, which barred recovery of taxes assessed within the applicable period of limitation.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Hughes delivered. the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner filed his income tax return for 1916 in February, 1917. In October, 1921, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed an additional tax, and in November, 1921, the petitioner filed a claim in abatement. In 1924, the Commissioner allowed the claim in abatement for a portion of the amount claimed and rejected it as to the residue, which the petitioner then paid, upon the collector’s demand. In December, 1927, the petitioner filed a claim for refund, which was rejected, whereupon this suit was brought in the Court of Claims in December, 1928, to recover the amount paid. The court dismissed the action, applying section 611 of the Revenue Act of 1928 (c. 852, 45 Stat. 791, 875), 37 Fed. (2d) 763. This Court granted a writ of certiorari, 281 U. S. 713..
, The questions , presented with respect to the construction and validity of section 611 are the same as those considered in Graham v. Goodcell, ante, p. 409. The petitioner contends, however, that this section does not apply to his case, upon the ground that the tax was not assessed within the three-year period of limitation prescribed by section 9 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1916 (c. 463, 39 Stat. 756, 763). The Court of Claims held that the assessment was valid under the provisions of section 250 (d) of the Act of 1921 (Act of November 23, 1921, c: 136, 42 Stat. 227, 265). We think the court was right in' construing this statute as applicable to the assessment, although previously made, and hence that the tax was assessed “within the period of limitation properly ..applicable thereto,”, as required by section 611 of the Revenue Act of 1928....
The petitioner also insists that his claim in abatement Was illegal under section 250 (d) of the Revenue Act of 1921. We do not find that there was any statutory prohibition of the filing of a claim in abatement in the circumstances here shown.' The taxpayer benefited by the claim and is not in a position to contest its legality.Compare United States v. The John Barth Company, 279 U. S. 370, 376; Florsheim Brothers Dry Goods Company, Limited, v. United States, 280 U. S. 453, 464. The case falls within section 611 of the Revenue Act of 1928 and this precludes recovery. .
Judgment affirmed.'
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Hartwell Mills v. Rose, 61 F.2d 441 (5th Cir. 1932)…chafer v. Craft (D. C.) 144 F. 907; Bailey v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co., 22 Wall. (89 U. S.) 604, 22 L. Ed. 840; Champ Spring Co. v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 47 F.(2d) 1; Routzahn v. Petroleum Iron Works Co. (C. C. [*444] A.) 56 F.(2d) 938; Magee v. U. S., 282 U. S. 432, 51 S. Ct. 195, 75 L. Ed. 442. In such a ease it is even held that, where a reeompu-tation made after the bar has fallen, and therefore too late to form the basis of a reassessment, shows that additional amounts in excess of the overpayments were ju…1 / 4
-
Moran v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 67 F.2d 601 (1st Cir. 1933)…d the benefit of that position, and rights having become fixed on that basis, we are clear that his estate ought not now to be allowed to repudiate the position so definitely taken nor to assert rights inconsistent therewith. Magee v. United States, 282 U. S. 432, 51 S. Ct. 195, 75 L. Ed. 442; Davis v. Wakelee, 156 U. S. 680, 15 S. Ct. 555, 39 L. Ed. 578; Casey v. Galli, 94 U. S. 673, 680, 24 L. Ed. 168; Hartwell Mills v. Rose, 61 F.(2d) 441 (C. C. A. 5). “If it was a mistake, of which there is no evidence,…1 / 2
-
Routzahn v. Petroleum Iron Works Co. of Ohio, 56 F.2d 938 (6th Cir. 1932)…The position taken by the plaintiff in the court below as to these matters is completely answered by the decisions of the Supreme [*940] Court in Graham & Foster v. Goodcell, 282 U. S. 409, 51 S. Ct. 186, 75 L. Ed. 415, and Magee v. United States, 282 U. S. 432, 51 S. Ct. 195, 75 L. Ed. 442. The latter ease is particularly relevant to plaintiffs present position in respect of taxes for the year ending June 30, 1918, for here, as there, “the taxpayer benefited by the claim [in abatement] and is not in a pos…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Florsheim Bros. Drygoods Co., Ltd. v. United States, 280 U.S. 453 (U.S. 1930)
- United States v. The John Barth Co., 279 U.S. 370 (U.S. 1929)
- Aiken v. Lucas, 281 U.S. 713 (U.S. 1930)
- Miller Bros. Co. v. Lektophone Corp., 281 U.S. 713 (U.S. 1930)