Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/98033/kavanagh-vs-noble
Timestamp: 2018-03-24 12:16:10
Document Index: 518244837

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3313', '§ 322', '§ 322', '§ 3313', '§ 322', '§ 322', '§ 3313', '§ 322', '§ 322', '§ 322']

Kavanagh Vs Noble - Citation 98033 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Kavanagh Vs. Noble - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/98033
Case Number 332 U.S. 535
Appellant Kavanagh
.....husband and wife." reference was made to § 3313 of the internal revenue code, specifying a four-year period of limitations. the commissioner of internal revenue rejected this claim in reliance upon § 322(b)(1) of the revenue act of 1934 (the same as § 322(b)(1) of the code), establishing a two-year period of limitations; it was pointed out that § 3313 specifically excludes income taxes from those for which a claim may be filed within four years after payment. on july 12, 1941, the taxpayer filed his individual claim for refund of $21,527.70 paid with respect to the year 1935. the claim was on the same grounds as the claim previously filed by the taxpayer and his wife. this claim was returned with the request that the wife join page 332 u. s. 538 in the execution of.....
Kavanagh v. Noble - 332 U.S. 535 (1947)
U.S. Supreme Court Kavanagh v. Noble, 332 U.S. 535 (1947)
1. Assuming that the deficiency assessment and collection of the federal income tax in this case were without legal authority, the taxpayer's payment of that illegal assessment was an "overpayment" within the meaning of § 322(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, and (the return having been filed more than three years previously) a claim for refund was barred by limitations where not filed within two years of the date of that payment. Jones v. Liberty Glass Co., ante, p. 332 U. S. 524 . Pp. 332 U. S. 536 -538.
2. It is for Congress, not the courts, to provide remedies for inequities resulting from the application of limitations on refunds of federal taxes. P. 332 U. S. 539 .
The District Court gave judgment for the respondent in a suit upon a claim for refund of federal income tax. 66 F.Supp. 258. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 160 F.2d 104. This Court granted certiorari. 331 U.S. 800. Reversed, p. 332 U. S. 539 .
This case is a companion to Jones v. Liberty Glass Co., ante, p. 332 U. S. 524 .
On June 7, 1937, the taxpayer was advised at a conference with revenue agents that there was additional income tax due for the year 1935, aggregating $421.80. The taxpayer's check, which was tendered for that amount, was later returned to him. Then, by a letter dated June 11, 1937, a revenue agent notified the taxpayer that, instead of a deficiency of $421.80 on the 1935 income tax return, there was a deficiency of $19,973.93, and the taxpayer was furnished a computation showing the basis for such determination. The agent relied upon Article 117-5, Regulations 86, later declared void by this Court in Helvering v. Janney, 311 U. S. 189 . After protest and further conference, the taxpayer gave
On July 12, 1941, the taxpayer filed his individual claim for refund of $21,527.70 paid with respect to the year 1935. The claim was on the same grounds as the claim previously filed by the taxpayer and his wife. This claim was returned with the request that the wife join
For reasons which we have set forth in Jones v. Liberty Glass Co., ante, p. 332 U. S. 524 , the decision below cannot stand. The two-year period provided by § 322(b)(1), rather than the four-year period of § 3313, governs income tax refund claims. The overpayment which brings § 322(b)(1) into operation occurs whenever the taxpayer has paid an amount over and above his true liability. Hence, if we assume that the deficiency assessment and collection in this case were without legal authority, the taxpayer's payment of that illegal assessment was an overpayment within the meaning of § 322(b)(1). And he had two years from the date of that payment within which to file a claim for refund. Since he did not file his claim until three and a half years after payment, the claim was out of time.
It may well be that the taxpayer's refund claim was prompted by this Court's decision in Helvering v. Janney, supra, which set aside the Treasury regulation upon which the deficiency assessment was based. That decision was rendered on December 9, 1940, and the taxpayer filed his first refund claim on January 28, 1941. But, assuming that the Janney decision makes clear that the taxpayer
here made an overpayment, the loss which he now suffers from an application of § 322(b)(1) is a loss which is inherent in the application of any period of limitations. Such periods are established to cut off rights, justifiable or not, that might otherwise be asserted, and they must be strictly adhered to by the judiciary. Rosenman v. United States, 323 U. S. 658 , 323 U. S. 661 . Remedies for resulting inequities are to be provided by Congress, not the courts.