Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/303/414.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 05:06:19+00:00

Document:
Messrs. Homer S. Cummings, Atty. Gen., and Arnold Raum, of Washington, D.C., for the United States. [303 U.S. 414, 415] Mr. Claude C. Smith, of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.
Under the Revenue Act of 1928,1 forbidding suit by the United States to recover an erroneous tax refund unless brought 'within two years after the making of such refund,' does the two year limitation begin when the refund is allowed or when it is paid?
The Court of Appeals affirmed2 the District Court's judgment holding the Government barred by this limitation because the present suit was not brought within two years after the Commissioner allowed the refund by signing the schedule of overassessments.
March 15, 1932, the Commissioner erroneously approved a refund of taxes paid by respondent for the year 1929. April 30, 1932, a check was mailed to the taxpayer for this erroneous refund. April 26, 1934, more than two years after the allowance of the refund, but less than two years after actual payment, the Government brought this suit to recover the erroneous refund.
The Government by appropriate action can recover funds which its agents have wrongfully, erroneously, or illegally paid. 3 'No statute is necessary to authorize the United States to sue in such a case. The right to sue is independent of statute,' United States v. Bank of the Metropolis, 15 Pet. 377, 401. Section 610 of the [303 U.S. 414, 416] 1928 Act, relied upon as barring recovery of this erroneous and unwarranted tax refund, does not grant the Government a new right, but is a limitation of the Government's long-established right to sue for money wrongfully or erroneously paid from the public treasury. Ordinarily, recovery of Government funds, paid by mistake to one having no just right to keep the funds, is not barred by the passage of time. 4 There is no contention here that respondent has any right to retain this refund erroneously paid by the Government. His defense is that the statutory bar prevents recovery. The Government's right to recover funds, from a person who received them by mistake and without right, is not barred unless Congress has 'clearly manifested its intention'5 to raise a statutory barrier.
'Where the Commissioner has (before or after June 6, 1932) signed a schedule of overassessments in respect of any internal revenue tax imposed by the Revenue Act of 1932, or any prior revenue Act, the date on which he first signs such schedule (if after May 28, 1928) shall be considered as the date of allowance of refund or credit in respect of such tax.' This Act in no manner [303 U.S. 414, 417] relates to limitations on suits for erroneous refunds. It has no purpose in common with section 610 of the 1928 Act. The 1932 Act throws no light on the meaning of section 610.
[ Footnote 1 ] Revenue Act of 1928, c. 852, 45 Stat. 791, 875, 610, 26 U.S.C.A. 1646 and note.
[ Footnote 2 ] 3 Cir., 91 F.2d 547; certiorari granted, 302 U.S. 678 , 58 S.Ct. 265, 82 L.Ed.
[ Footnote 3 ] Wisconsin Central Railroad United States, 164 U.S. 190, 212 , 17 S. Ct. 45; see United States v. Burchard, 125 U.S. 176, 180 , 181 S., 8 S.Ct. 832.
[ Footnote 4 ] Grand Trunk Western Railway Co. v. United States, 252 U.S. 112, 121 , 40 S.Ct. 309, 312.
[ Footnote 5 ] Compare, United States v. Nashville, etc., Railway Co., 118 U.S. 120, 125 , 6 S.Ct. 1006, 30 L.Ed.81.
[ Footnote 6 ] Revenue Act of 1932, c. 209, 47 Stat. 169, 287, 1104, 26 U.S.C.A . 1670(3).
[ Footnote 7 ] Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. Hall, 91 U.S. 343 , 347.
[ Footnote 8 ] Daube v. United States, 289 U.S. 367, 372 , 53 S.Ct. 597, 599.
[ Footnote 9 ] House Report No. 179, 68th Congress, 1st Session, page 27.
[ Footnote 10 ] Cf., Borer v. Chapman, 119 U.S. 587, 602 , 7 S.Ct. 342, 350.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.