Court Opinion

ID: 9660704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:18:47.519241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:21.482168
License: Public Domain

*181JONES, Chief Judge
"(dissenting);'
I cannot agree to the conclusion reached by the majority. When plaintiff signed the waiver, the parties were in complete agreement as to all issues involved. The actual assessment was simply a -pro forma matter.
The filing of the waiver stopped interest, 30 days after the signing, on the amount due the Government. If the purely ministerial act of levying the deficiency assessment had been made within the 30-day period, it would have stopped the accumulating interest on the item due the plaintiff. To claim interest on an item that for all practical purposes had been settled by agreement of the parties places undue emphasis on the technical provisions of the law, and contrary to its manifest purpose.
The parties were in complete agreement as to both items 30 days before April 28, 1946. All parties understood what their rights were. Since interest was stopped as of that date by virtue of the agreement on the item due the Government, it should have ended for the same reason on the amount due the plaintiff. Rodgers v. United States, 108 F.Supp. 727, 123 Ct.Cl. 779, 783.