Document: 332 U.S. 535 68 S.Ct. 235 92 L.Ed. 150 KAVANAGH, Collector of Internal Revenue,v.NOBLE. No. 70. Argued Nov. 18, 1947. Decided Dec. 22, Rehearing Denied March 8, 1948. See 333 850, 656. Mr. Lee A. Jackson, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Messrs. W. H. Harris and E. M. Baynes, both West Palm Beach, Fla., respondent. Justice MURPHY delivered the opinion Court. 1 This case is a companion to Jones v. Liberty Glass Co., 322 524, 229. 2 The stipulated facts show that on 16, 1936, respondent taxpayer filed with Revenue joint individual income tax return himself his wife calendar year 1935. disclosed liability $8,017.01, which was duly paid. In losses gains from sales capital assets by were reported together, being deducted husband, resulting in net loss excess $2,000. amount (the allowable limit loss) return. 3 On June 7, 1937, advised at conference revenue agents there additional due 1935, aggregating $421.80. taxpayer's check, tendered amount, later returned him. Then letter dated 11, agent notified instead deficiency $421.80 1935 $19,973.93 furnished computation showing basis such determination. relied upon Article 117-5, Regulations 86, declared void this Court Helvering Janney, 311 189, 61 241, 85 118, 131 A.L.R. 980. After protest further conference, gave check $21,527.70, covering then proposed assessment $19,973.93, plus interest $1,553.77. remitted United States Treasury, after having been received July 21, 1937. 4 14, executed an agreement waiving certain statutory restrictions their favor consenting immediate collection against them principal sum $1,553.77, Commissioner thereafter assessed. specified footnote it not final closing under § 606 Act 1928, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Acts, page 458, did therefore preclude assertion if one should be determined, nor extend period limitation refund, or tax. 5 January 28, 1941, claim refund $21,105.90, interest, ground had illegal since 'refused allow spouse other husband wife.' Reference made 3313 Code, Int.Rev.Code, 3313, specifying four-year limitations. rejected reliance 322(b)(1) 1934, same as 322(b)(1), establishing two-year limitations; pointed out specifically excludes taxes those may within four years payment. 6 12, $21,527.70 paid respect grounds previously wife. request join execution claim; refused Collector; once again taxpayer. 7 brought suit recover alleged claim. District held decision Sixth Circuit Appeals Lederer Terminal Warehouse 139 F.2d 679, controlled clear applicable. Summary judgment entered 66 F.Supp. 258. affirmed per curiam, 160 104, citing its previous case. 8 For reasons we have set forth 229, below cannot stand. provided rather than governs claims. overpayment brings into operation occurs whenever has over above true liability. Hence, assume without legal authority, payment meaning 322(b)(1). And he two th date file refund. Since until three half payment, time. 9 It well prompted Court's supra, aside Treasury regulation based. That rendered December 9, 1940, first 1941. But assuming Janney makes here overpayment, now suffers application inherent any Such periods are established cut off rights, justifiable not, might otherwise asserted they must strictly adhered judiciary. Rosenman States, 323 658, 661, 65 536, 538, 89 535. Remedies inequities Congress, courts. 10 Moreover, our province speculate why Congress shorter limitations relative governed 3313. enough creates applicable all claims type. 11 Reversed. 12 DOUGLAS dissents.

Category: 11