Court Opinion

ID: 9448932
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:50:13.17628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:24.372970
License: Public Domain

JONES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting in part).
I am not in agreement with that part of the Court’s opinion which holds that the taxpayer’s letter which accompanied his return, together with the letters to and from the Internal Revenue Agent, did not constitute an informal claim for refund.
The rule as to informal claims is thus stated:
“Letters and protests ordinarily do not meet the requirements of the statute, but where they are found to constitute ‘more than a protest or a statement of an intention to file a claim later,’ they have been accepted as informal refund claims.” Mer-tens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, Ch. 58, p. 48, § 58.20.
*653The rule has been stated and restated by the Supreme Court. United States v. Kales, 314 U.S. 186, 62 S.Ct. 214, 86 L. Ed. 132; Bonwit Teller & Company v. United States, 283 U.S. 258, 51 S.Ct. 395, 75 L.Ed. 1018. See also Rogan v. Ferry, 9th Cir., 1946, 154 F.2d 974; United States v. Lederer Terminal Warehouse Company, 6th Cir., 1943, 139 F. 2d 679. The Court of Claims has thus stated the rule and the reasons for it:
“It has long been recognized that the failure to meet the formal requirements in regard to claims for refund is not necessarily destructive of a tax payer’s right to such refund where the Commissioner was not misled or deceived by the failure to file a formal claim [Citations]. The purpose of a claim for refund is to put the Commissioner on notice that a right is being asserted with respect to an overpayment of tax [Citation], This notice must be given within the time required by the statutory limitation period or ■else the claim is barred. Such a rule prevents the assertion of stale claims which would be difficult or impossible to determine on their merits due to the passage of time. However, where the Commissioner has had notice from the very beginning of the taxpayer’s claim to a refund of tax predicated on specific facts the very purpose of a limitations period has been served [Citation] .
*#*#** “Necessarily each case must be decided on its own peculiar set of facts with a view towards determining whether under those facts the Commissioner knew, or should have known, that a claim was being made.” Newton v. United States, 143 Ct.Cl. 293, 163 F.Supp. 614.
With this principle and the reasons given I am in accord.
In his letter the taxpayer said, “I am requesting that my royalties be subject to tax as Capital Gains and that I be refunded the amount of tax being paid on it as ordinary income.” What more could he have said on printed form, and how could it have been said more clearly? The Internal Revenue Service could not have entertained a doubt but that a claim was being asserted and the basis for it. Believing that the judgment of the district court should be reversed, I dissent.