Legal Document

Cite as: 571 U. S. ____ (2013) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FORD MOTOR COMPANY v. ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 13–113. Decided December 2, 2013 PER CURIAM. When a taxpayer overpays his taxes, he is generally entitled to interest from the Government for period between payment and ultimate refund. See 26 U.S. C. §6611(a). That begins run “from date of overpayment.” §§6611(b)(1), (b)(2). But Code does not define “the In this case, after Internal Revenue Service advised Ford Motor Company that it had underpaid its taxes 1983 until 1989, remitted series deposits IRS totaling $875 million. Those stopped ac- crual would otherwise owe once audits were completed amount underpay- ment was finally determined. §6601; Rev. Proc. 84– 58, 1984–2 Cum. Bull. 501. Later, requested treat as advance payments addi- tional tax owed. Eventually parties deter- mined overpaid in relevant years, thereby entitling return over- well interest. disagreed about when began under §6611(b)(1). argued overpayment” first IRS. Ibid. The countered remittances tax. difference parties’ competing interpretations §6611(b) worth some $445 sued Federal District Court, 2 CO. asserting jurisdiction 28 §1346(a)(1). did contest court’s jurisdiction. Brief Opposition 3, n. 3. Court accepted Government’s construction granted motion judgment on pleadings. A panel Appeals Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding §6611 waiver sovereign immunity must be construed strictly favor Government. 508 Fed. Appx. 506 (2012). sought certiorari, arguing wrong give strict construction. Ford’s view, §1346—not §6611—that waives suit, substantive provision should strictly. Gómez-Pérez Potter, 553 474, 491 (2008); United States White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 465, 472–473 (2003). response petition however, contended time §1346(a)(1) apply at all suit; argues only basis jurisdiction, general encompasses [Ford’s] claim,” Tucker Act, §1491(a). Although acquiesced lower courts, if Gov- ernment now correct Act applies over case proper Claims. This “is one final review, ‘not view.’ ” FCC Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 502, 529 (2009) (quoting Cutter Wilkinson, 544 709, 718, 7 (2005)). have oppor- tunity consider new contention with respect case. Depending answer, may also what impact, any, jurisdictional determination has merits issues, especially whether or 3 certiorari granted, vacated, remanded further proceedings. It so ordered.

Classification Label: 11