Source: https://openjurist.org/283/us/269
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 09:55:23+00:00

Document:
The Attorney General and Mr. Charles B. Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Messrs. Thomas G. Haight, of Jersey City, N. J., and Robert H. Montgomery, of New York City, for respondent.
This Court granted certiorari, 281 U. S. 719, 50 S. Ct. 466, 74 L. Ed. 1138, to review a judgment of the Court of Claims, allowing recovery by respondent of income and excess profits taxes alleged to have been illegally exacted for the year 1917. 37 F.(2d) 977, 69 Ct. Cl. 204. It is conceded that respondent was entitled to a deduction from gross income for that year on account of exhaustion or obsolescence of patents, under section 203 of the Revenue Act of March 3, 1917, 39 Stat. 1001; sections 4 and 206 of the Act of October 3, 1917, 40 Stat. 302, 305; section 12(a) of the Act of 1916, 39 Stat. 767, which, if allowed, would result in the refund demanded.
The sole objection to recovery urged by the government is that the claim for refund filed by petitioner as a prerequisite to suit did not comply with section 1318 of the Revenue Act of 1921, 42 Stat. 314 (26 USCA § 156), and Article 1036 of Treasury Regulations 62, under that act.
That section provides for a special method of assessment of excess profits taxes in any case where the Secretary of the Treasury is unable satisfactorily to determine the invested capital of the taxpayer. It has no relation to deductions from gross income on account of exhaustion or obsolescence of patents. In support of its claim, which was ultimately allowed in part, respondent prepared and filed a brief, and an oral argument was held in the office of the Commissioner; but neither in its claim for refund, its brief, nor at the hearing, was mention made of the deduction now claimed.
The filing of a claim or demand as a prerequisite to a suit to recover taxes paid is a familiar provision of the revenue laws, compliance with which may be insisted upon by the defendant, whether the collector or the United States. Tucker v. Alexander, 275 U. S. 228, 48 S. Ct. 45, 72 L. Ed. 253; Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 342, 353, 354, 40 S. Ct. 155, 64 L. Ed. 297; Kings County Savings Institution v. Blair, 116 U. S. 200, 6 S. Ct. 353, 29 L. Ed. 657; Nichols v. United States, 7 Wall. 122, 130, 19 L. Ed. 125.
One object of such requirements is to advise the appropriate officials of the demands or claims intended to be asserted, so as to insure an orderly administration of the revenue, Nichols v. United States, supra, page 130 of 7 Wall., a purpose not accomplished with respect to the present demand by the bare declaration in respondent's claim that it was filed 'to protect all possible legal rights of the taxpayer.' The claim for refund which section 1318 makes prerequisite to suit, obviously relates to the claim which may be asserted by the suit. Hence, quite apart from the provisions of the Regulation, the statute is not satisfied by the filing of a paper which gives no notice of the amount or nature of the claim for which the suit is brought, and refers to no facts upon which it may be founded.
The Court of Claims, in allowing recovery, relied upon Tucker v. Alexander, supra, and upon the fact that, at the time when respondent filed its return and its claim for refund, the Treasury had consistently refused to allow deductions from gross income for exhaustion of patents. Consequently it held that the filing of a demand which was certain to be refused was a futile and unnecessary act. But in Tucker v. Alexander the right of the government to insist upon compliance with the statutory requirement was emphasized. Only because that right was recognized was it necessary to decide whether it could be waived. The Court held that it could, and that in that case it had been waived by the stipulation of the collector filed in court. Here there was no compliance with the statute, nor was there a waiver of its condition, since the Commissioner had no knowledge of the claim and took no action with respect to it.
The necessity for filing a claim such as the statute requires is not dispensed with because the claim may be rejected. It is the rejection which makes the suit necessary. An anticipated rejection of the claim, which the statute contemplates, is not a ground for suspending its operation, Even though formal, the condition upon which the consent to suit is given is defined by the words of the statute, and 'they mark the conditions of the claimant's right.' Rock Island R. R. Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 141, 143, 41 S. Ct. 55, 56, 65 L. Ed. 188. Compliance may be dispensed with by waiver, as an administrative act, Tucker v. Alexander, supra; but it is not within the judicial province to read out of the statute the requirement ofits words, Rand v. United States, 249 U. S. 503, 510, 39 S. Ct. 359, 63 L. Ed. 731.
'The taxpayer has filed with the commissioner a claim for special relief under section 210 of te 1 917 revenue act for the excess profits tax assessed for this period.

References: § 156
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.