Source: https://casetext.com/case/sweeney-v-united-states-3
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 17:00:02+00:00

Document:
January 18, 1961. Rehearing Denied April 7, 1961.
Earl L. Huntington, Washington, D.C., with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles K. Rice, for defendant; James P. Garland and Lyle M. Turner, Washington, D.C., were on the brief.
Plaintiff brings this action as the son and executor of the Estate of Dr. Alvin R. Sweeney, deceased. He seeks to recover Federal income taxes which he asserts have been erroneously and illegally collected. He also seeks the cash equivalent of sick leave which decedent had to his credit on the date of his resignation as Superintendent of Gallinger Municipal Hospital, Washington, D.C.
The decedent, Dr. Sweeney, was commissioned an assistant surgeon in the United States Public Health Service on March 3, 1913, from which position he was retired by reason of age on October 1, 1945, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Health Service Act of 1944, 58 Stat. 682, 42 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. In the early part of his last year of service, 1945, and while still on active duty, decedent learned of the possibility of obtaining employment as Superintendent of Gallinger Municipal Hospital (now known as D.C. General Hospital). After negotiating with the City Health Officer of the District of Columbia and others, he was appointed Superintendent of Gallinger Municipal Hospital on July 6, 1945.
Dr. Sweeney resigned as Superintendent effective May 15, 1949. The plaintiff, on February 3, 1954, sought a refund of income taxes for the years 1945 to 1949, inclusive. The Chief of the Appellate Division of the Internal Revenue Service, Philadelphia Region, advised plaintiff that the refund claims would be disallowed because the sums allowed as commutation of living quarters were a part of the compensation and constituted taxable income. The chief of the division asserted as a further reason for disallowance that the various claims for refund were not timely filed and were barred by the statutory period of limitations set forth by § 322(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 53 Stat. 91, 26 U.S.C.A. § 322(b)(1). Accordingly, the claims for refund were disallowed.
With regard to the assertion that the claims for refund were not timely filed, it appears that the Government is correct. Section 322(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 provides that no claim for credit or refund of tax shall be allowed or made unless filed within 3 years from the time the return was filed or within 2 years from the time the tax was paid. Plaintiff did not file his claim for refund for the years 1945-1949 until February 3, 1954. The recitation of these facts clearly indicates that plaintiff filed for claims outside the period of limitations set forth in § 322(b)(1).
We do not believe that the text of the decedent's letter of January 19, 1949, can, even with a liberal interpretation, be construed as a claim for refund. It is merely a request for a ruling as to whether the commutation of quarters allowance was taxable. See Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States, 1923, 260 U.S. 565, 43 S. Ct. 169, 67 L.Ed. 406; Pine Hill Crystal Spring Water Co. v. United States, 1932, 58 F.2d 506, 74 Ct.Cl. 729.
"I am pleased to enclose herewith copy of Public Law 131-79th Congress (H.R. 3257) which made it possible for the undersigned to accept the position of Superintendent of Gallinger Hospital, and at the same time protect the rights for retirement benefits upon relinquishing the position of Superintendent. Then entering on duty as Superintendent of the hospital July 5, 1945, I elected to accept the position of Superintendent instead of retirement pay while so acting as Superintendent.
However, even if the period of limitations set forth in § 322(b)(1) were not directly applicable, and even if the requirements for a proper claim for refund had been complied with, we would be unable to reach a decision for the plaintiff. The sums received for commutation of quarters could not in the circumstances shown here be construed other than in the manner in which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has interpreted them. Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 53 Stat. 9, 26 U.S.C.A. § 22(a), defines income as including "gains, profits and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service * * * of whatever kind and in whatever form paid * * *." The Tax Court when presented with a situation analogous to that before us construed § 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 as the Commissioner interpreted it here. Van Rosen v. Commissioner, 1951, 17 T.C. 834. See also Herman Martin v. Commissioner, 1941, 44 B.T.A. 185.
As to the second count which involves a claim for the cash equivalent of sick leave, the Gallinger Hospital is an instrumentality of the District of Columbia and not of the United States. The United States Government is not liable for the obligations of the District of Columbia as a municipal corporation unless the Congress has otherwise provided. O'Toole v. United States, D.C. 1952, 106 F. Supp. 804; Bundy v. United States, 1886, 21 Ct.Cl. 429. The District of Columbia has revenues and liabilities distinct from those of the United States. In light of the foregoing, an inquiry into the merits of the plaintiff's claim for the money equivalent of the decedent's accrued sick leave is unnecessary. Plaintiff's petition on this count must be dismissed because he has not stated a cause of action against the United States.
The third and final count in plaintiff's petition appears to be a request for a declaratory judgment as to the taxability of the retirement pay received by Dr. Sweeney from May 16, 1949, until the latter's death in April 1954. Plaintiff stated at a pretrial conference that no claims for refund of any tax attributable to such retirement benefits have been filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Plaintiff's failure to make timely claims for refund demands that the third count of his petition be dismissed. As we said on this point with regard to plaintiff's first count, no claim for refund can be allowed unless there has been timely claim for refund pursuant to § 322(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. Moreover, plaintiff's third count must be dismissed on the additional ground that this court has no jurisdiction to grant a declaratory judgment with regard to Federal taxes under 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

References: § 201
 § 322
 § 322
 § 322
 v. 
 v. 
 § 322
 § 22
 § 22
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 322
 § 2201