Summary
In Abbott and Abramson, the court concluded that the legislative history was not compelling because it failed to provide the sort of "extraordinary showing of contrary intentions" necessary to justify a departure from the unambiguous statutory language.
Summary of this case from Mudge v. U.S.Opinion
Docket No. 00-6029.
Argued: October 11, 2000.
Decided: October 17, 2000.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, David N. Hurd, Judge, dismissing action seeking refunds of federal income and social security taxes withheld from lump-sum payments made to them by their employer upon the termination of their employment.
Affirmed.
Neil D. Kimmelfield, Portland, Oregon (James T. McDermott, Ball Janik, Portland, Oregon, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Donald B. Tobin, Attorney, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Paula M. Junghans, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth L. Greene, Attorney, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Daniel J. French, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse, New York, on the brief), for Defendant-Appellee.
The judgment dismissing plaintiffs' action seeking refunds of federal income and social security employment taxes withheld from lump-sum payments, made to them by their employer upon the termination of their employment, calculated on the basis of each plaintiff's salary and years of service, and conditioned on the signing of releases, is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in the opinion of the district court, reported at 76 F.Supp.2d 236 (1999). Accord Abrahamsen v. United States, 228 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000).