green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 14×
35.4 score
G Cite
cited 17× by 5 distinct cases ·
…an overpayment must appear before refund is authorized.
Treatment trajectory · 1932 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1932
1979
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Wells Fargo & Company v. United States
although the statute of limitations may have barred the assessment and collection of any additional sum, it does not obliterate the right of the united states to retain payments already received when they do not exceed the amount which might have been properly assessed and demand…
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Union Telecom LLC v. United States
the taxpayer, nevertheless, is not entitled to a refund unless he has overpaid his tax
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Silipigno v. United States
although the statute of limitations may have barred the assessment and collection of any additional sum, it does not obliterate the right of the united states to retain payments already received when they do not exceed the amount which might have been properly assessed and demand…
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Director, Division of Taxation
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
although the statute of limitations may have barred the assessment and collection of any additional sum, it does not obliterate the right of the united states to retain payments already received when they do not exceed the amount which might have been properly assessed and demand…
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Sara Lee Corp. & Subsidiaries v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
while the statutes authorizing refunds do not specifically empower the commissioner to reaudit a return whenever repayment is claimed, authority therefor is necessarily im-plied____
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Bush v. United States
(6×)
an overpayment must appear before refund is authorized.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Handelsman v. Johnson
(3×)
an overpayment must appear before refund is authorized.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Handelsman v. Johnson
(3×)
an overpayment must appear before refund is authorized.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Thompson v. United States
(3×)
the action to recover on a claim for refund is in the nature of an action for money had and received and it is incumbent upon the claimant to show that the united states has money which belongs to him.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
David S. v. United States
(2×)
the action to recover on a claim for refund is in the nature of an action for money had and received and it is incumbent upon the claimant to show that the united states has money which belongs to him.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
National Westminster Bank, PLC v. United States
(3×)
an overpayment must appear before refund is authorized.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
CSX Corp. v. United States
(3×)
the ultimate question presented for decision, upon a claim for refund, is whether the taxpayer has overpaid his tax
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Duane H. Wall v. United States
(2×)
an overpayment must appear before refund is authorized.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Amax Coal Co. v. United States
(3×)
he ultimate question presented for decision, upon a claim for refund, is whether the taxpayer has overpaid his tax.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Estate of Alice Jeans Coggin, Wanda Woodford, Personal Representative
See 28 U.S.C. sec. 1346 (a)(1) (2018); Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1958); Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 283 (1932).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Libitzky v. United States
Also, while it is true that an “overpayment 2 must appear before refund is authorized,” Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 283 (1932), it is also 3 true that “even ‘an informal claim which fairly gives notice of a taxpayer’s intention to press for a 4 refund of taxes is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement.’” Sorenson v. Secretary of 5 Treasury of U.S., 752 F.2d 1433 , 1439 (9th Cir. 1985). 6 The United States further argues that “without the 2011 Form 1040, no matter what 7 amounts were indicated on other submissions, the IRS could not begin to guess at the merits of,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sapir v. United States
Thus, the “ultimate question presented for decision”—whether the plaintiff, in fact, overpaid its tax—“involves a redetermination of the entire tax liability.” Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 283 (1932). “[I]t is incumbent upon the claimant to show that the United States has money damages which belong to [it].” Id.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rische v. United States
Lewis v. Reynolds 16 In a tax refund suit, the question presented is whether a taxpayer has overpaid his tax. 17 Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 283 (1932); Sokolow v. United States, 169 F.3d 663, 665 (9th 18 Cir. 1999). “[T]he taxpayer bears the burden of proving the amount he is entitled to recover.” 19 United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 440 (1976) (citing Lewis, 284 U.S. at 283 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
McGowan v. United States
The factual and legal analysis employed by the Commissioner is of no consequence to the district court.”) (citing Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 283 (1932)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Lyerly v. United States
(3×)
The Court in Lewis held that the Commissioner could lawfully refuse to refund taxes the petitioners had paid because “[wjhile no new assessment can be made, after the bar of the statute has fallen, the taxpayer, nevertheless, is not entitled to a refund unless he has overpaid his tax.” Id. at 283, 52 S.Ct. 145 (quotations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
8x8, Inc. v. United States
As the Supreme Court noted in Lewis v. Reynolds, refunds under the tax laws are limited to overpayments. 284 U.S. 281, 283 (1932).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hamilton v. United States
Id., 52 S.Ct. at 146 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sandoval Lua v. United States
Lewis, 284 U.S. at 283, 52 S.Ct. 145 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Riether v. United States
To receive a refund, the court said, the taxpayer must prove the amount she paid “exceeds the amount which might have been properly assessed and demanded.” Id. at 1407-08 (brackets omitted) (quoting Lewis, 284 U.S. at 283, 52 S.Ct. 145 and adding emphasis).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Principal Life Insurance v. United States
Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 532 , 115 S.Ct. 1611 , 131 L.Ed.2d 608 (1995); United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596 , 609 n. 6, 110 S.Ct. 1361 , 108 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990); Stone v. White, 301 U.S. 532, 534 , 57 S.Ct. 851 , 81 L.Ed. 1265 (1937); Lewis, 284 U.S. at 283, 52 S.Ct. 145 ; Missouri Pac.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Superior Court
(See also Lewis v. Reynolds (1932) 284 U.S. 281, 283 [ 76 L.Ed. 293 , 52 S.Ct. 145 ] ["`The action to recover on a claim for refund is in the nature of an action for money had and received, and it is incumbent upon the claimant to show that the United States has money which belongs to him.'"].) The action is legal, even though a plaintiff's right to recover depends on equitable principles.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jibilian v. Franchise Tax Board
The court explained: “Applicable here is the statement in Lewis v. Reynolds (1932) 284 U.S. 281, 283 [ 76 L.Ed. 293, 294 , 52 S.Ct. 145 , 1932- 1 C.B. 130 ], where, after an initial assessment had been paid, a claim for refund was filed and the statute of limitations for enforcement had lapsed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stead v. United States
United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 440 (1976); Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 283 (1932).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rupert v. United States
Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 283 , 52 S.Ct. 145, 146 , 76 L.Ed. 293, 295 (1932), modified, 284 U.S. 599 , 52 S.Ct. 264 , 76 L.Ed. 514 (1932); Pierson v. United States, 428 F.Supp. 384, 390 (D.Del. 1977); Armtek Corp. v. United States, 1996 WL 469015 at *2, 1996 U.S.Dist.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Estate of Algerine Allen Smith, James Allen Smith v. Commissioner
We relied on the holding in Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 283 (1932), wherein the Court stated: An overpayment must appear before refund is authorized.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Iowa 80 Group, Inc. v. United States
Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 284 (1932).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Charron v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The court further held, however, that the government could offset against any refund for that deduction other deductions that Bailey had improperly taken, the amount of which exceeded the allowed deduction. 81 Although the statute of limitations, 26 U.S.C. § 6501 , would now bar a government suit to collect the tax related to those improperly claimed deductions, the government may "retain payments already received when they do not exceed the amount which might have been properly assessed and demanded." Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 283 (1932); see also Doko Farms v. United States, 956 F.2d…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Estate of Michael v. Lullo
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
The Court's three-sentence holding begins by acknowledging the IRS's implied authority to reaudit a return in response to a refund suit: "While the statutes authorizing refunds do not specifically empower the Commissioner to reaudit a return whenever repayment is claimed, authority therefor is necessarily implied." 284 U.S. at 283 (emphasis added).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
William D. Colburn v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 283 (1932), however, held that the IRS's power to make a setoff is not restricted by the statute of limitations for collection of tax.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dye v. United States
(2×)
To receive a 1989 tax refund, however, Dye must prove that $75,472.14 “exceed[s] the amount which might have *1408 been properly assessed and demanded.” Lewis, 284 U.S. at 283, 52 S.Ct. at 146 (emphasis added).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Sprint Communications Co. v. State Board of Equalization
(3×)
In doing so, it quoted that portion of Lewis stating, “Although the statute of limitations may have barred the assessment and collection of any additional sum, it does not obliterate the right of the United States to retain payments already received when they do not exceed the amount which might have been properly assessed and demanded.” ( 284 U.S. at p. 283 [ 76 L.Ed. at p. 295 ]; Owens-Corning, supra, 39 Cal.App.3d at p. 536 .) Sprint stresses certain factual differences between the instant case and Owens-Coming, but it cannot escape its result: When a taxpayer files a use tax refund cla…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gordon E. Powelson as Personal Representative of the Estate of Clydena M. Gross, Deceased v. United States
In Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 283 (1932), the Court held: 9 An overpayment must appear before refund is authorized.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Allen v. United States
(2×)
Furthermore, in Loftin & Woodard, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1206, 1245-47 (5th Cir.1978), our predecessor court applied Lewis to permit the government to offset a refund claim (made after the running of the statute of limitations on further tax liability) with an increased' delinquency penalty. 7 The fact that, in the instant case, the government has asserted a different penalty rather than a larger amount of the same penalty as setoff does not materially distinguish this ease from Loftin & Woodard — Lewis sweeps broadly to permit redetermination of the entire tax liability by retainin…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hemmings v. Commissioner
Claim Preclusion — Effect of Refund Actions An action brought in District Court or the Claims Court by a taxpayer for the refund of taxes “is in the nature of an action for money had and received, and it is incumbent upon the claimant to show that the United States has money which belongs to him.” Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 283 (1932).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Webb v. IRS
Lewis v. _____ Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 283 (1932); see Bonilla-Aviles v. South- ________ ___ ______________ ______ mark San Juan, Inc., 992 F.2d 391, 393 (1st Cir. 1993) (if _____________________ nonmoving party bears ultimate burden of proof, he must present "definite" and "competent" evidence to survive summary judgment).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Title Insurance. Co. v. State Board of Equalization
(2×)
(See United States v. Janis (1976) 428 U.S. 433, 440 [ 49 L.Ed.2d 1046, 1052-1053 , 96 S.Ct. 3021 ]; Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. State Bd. of Equalization (1988) 204 Cal. App.3d 1269, 1276 [ 250 Cal. Rptr. 891 ], affd. 493 U.S. 378 (1990) [ 107 L.Ed.2d 796 , 110 S.Ct. 688 ].) The Board contends that, rather than requiring it to plead the defense affirmatively, we should treat this action as in the nature of an action for "money had and received" ( Lewis v. Reynolds (1932) 284 U.S. 281, 283 [ 76 L.Ed. 293, 294-295 , 52 S.Ct. 145 ], mod.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Loftin And Woodard, Inc. v. United States
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
For 231 although the statute of limitations may have barred the assessment and collection of any additional sum, it does not obliterate the right of the United States to retain payments already received when they do not exceed the amount which might have properly been assessed and demanded. 232 Lewis, 284 U.S. at 283 , 52 S.Ct. at 146 (emphasis added).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Clemones
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Lewis, 284 U.S. at 283 , 52 S.Ct. at 146 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Parker v. United States
However, the record here shows that as a result of the settlement the taxpayers should have reported net income of $212,000 of which $43,440 (in lieu of lost income) was taxable as ordinary income and $168,560 was taxable as long-term capital gain. 12 The following schedule shows the results of the foregoing allocation in tabular form: Total Amount Received Under Settlement $350,000 Less Adjusted Basis: Amount received as "inheritance” $58,000 Portion of attorney’s fees attributed to basis 63,440 Less amount attributed to lost income and taxable as ordinary income 60,000 181,440 Amount tax…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Blake Construction Co. v. United States
Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 283 (1932); Missouri Pacific R.R.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. State Board of Equalization
Applicable here is the statement in Lewis v. Reynolds (1932) 284 U.S. 281, 283 [ 76 L.Ed. 293, 294 , 52 S.Ct. 145 ], where, after an initial assessment had been paid, a claim for refund was filed and the statute of limitations for enforcement had lapsed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Davies v. United States
For an action to recover on a claim for refund of custom duties — like an action to recover on a claim for refund of internal revenue taxes — “is in the nature of an action for money had and received, and it is incumbent upon the claimant to show that the United States has money which belongs to him.” Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 283 (1932).
LEWIS Et Al., TRUSTEES,
v.
REYNOLDS, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
v.
REYNOLDS, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
115.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 4, 1932.
Mr. N. E. Corthell for petitioners., Assistant Attorney General Youngquist, with whom Solicitor General Thacher, Messrs. Whitney North Seymour and Sewall Key, and Miss Helen R. Carloss were on the brief, for respondent.
McReynolds.
Cited by 486 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (8) · Federal Claims (8) · Federal Circuit (6) · N.D. Alabama (3) · S.D. Indiana (3)
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners sued the respondent Collector in the United States District Court for Wyoming, September 20, 1929, to recover $7,297.16 alleged to have been . wrongfully exacted as income tax upon the estate of Cooper.
February 18, 1921, the administrator filed a return for the period January 1 to December 12, 1920, the day of final settlement. Among others, he reported deductions for attorney’s fees, $20,750, and inheritance taxes paid to the State, $16,870. The amount of tax as indicated by the return was paid.
November 24, 1925, the Commissioner, having audited the return, disallowed all deductions except the one for attorney’s fees and assessed a deficiency of $7,297.16. This sum was paid March 21, 1926; and on July 27, 1926, petitioners asked that it be refunded.
A letter from the Commissioner to petitioners, dated May 18, 1929, and introduced in evidence by them, stated that the deduction of $20,750 for attorney’s fees had been improperly allowed. He also set out a revised computation wherein he deducted the state inheritance taxes. This showed liability greater than the total sums theretofore exacted. The Commissioner further said: “ Since the correct computation results in an additional tax as indicated above which is barred from assessment by the statute of limitations your claim will be rejected on the next schedule to be approved by the commissioner.”
The trial court upheld the Commissioner’s action and its judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Counsel for petitioners relies upon the five year statute of limitations (Rey: Act. 1926, § 277). [1] He maintains[*283] that the Commissioner lacked authority to redetermine and reassess the tax after the statute had run. [2]
After referring to § 284, Revenue Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 66, and § 322, Revenue Act of 1928, 45 Stat. 861, the Circuit Court of Appeals said [48 F. (2d) 515, 516]—
“The above quoted provisions clearly limit refunds to overpayments. It follows that the ultimate question presented for decision, upon a claim for refund, is whether the taxpayer has overpaid his tax. This involves a re-determination of the entire tax liability. While no new assessment can be made, after the bar of the statute has fallen, the taxpayer, nevertheless, is not entitled to a refund unless he has overpaid his tax. The action to recover on a claim for refund is in-the nature of an action for money had and received, and it is incumbent upon the claimant to show that the United States has money which belongs to him.”
We agree with the conclusion reached by the courts below.
While the statutes authorizing refunds do not specifically empower the Commissioner to reaudit a return whenever repayment is claimed, authority therefor is necessarily implied. An overpayment must appear before refund is authorized. Although the statute of limitations may have barred the assessment and collection of any additional sum, it does not obliterate the right of the United States to retain payments already received when they do not exceed the amount which might have been properly assessed and demanded.
[*284] Bonwit Teller & Co. v. United States, 283 U. S. 258, says nothing in conflict with the view which we now approve.
Affirmed.
1
“Sec. 277. (a) Except as provided in § 278 [not here important] — . . . (3) The amount of income, excess-profits, and war-[*283] profits taxes imposed by . . . the Revenue Act of 1918, and by any such Act as amended, shall be assessed within five years after the return was filed, and no proceeding in court without assessment for the collection of such taxes shall be begun after the expiration of such period.”
2
The opinion is printed here as amended by an order of February 15, 1932, to be published in the last part of this volume.