From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co.

U.S.
Jan 9, 1933
288 U.S. 62 (1933)

Summary

holding that the USA waives claims where it considers them during a refund claim but does not dispute them

Summary of this case from Skidmore v. Internal Revenue Serv.

Opinion

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

No. 308.

Argued December 9, 1932. Decided January 9, 1933.

1. A claim for a tax refund which has been seasonably filed, but which fails to conform to Treasury Regulations in that it omits to state the grounds upon which the refund is demanded, may be amended by specifying the grounds at any time before the claim in its original form has been finally rejected, though it be after the time when a wholly new claim would be barred by limitation. Pp. 69, 71, et seq. So held under § 1318, Rev. Act of 1921, as amended March 4, 1923, which provides that no suit for recovery shall be maintained in any court until a claim for refund has been duly filed with the Commissioner "according to the provisions of law in that regard and the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury established in pursuance thereof"; where the regulation required that "all the facts relied upon in support of the claim should be clearly set forth under oath"; and where the claim, originally exhibiting only the taxpayer's statement of amounts of net income, tax, previous payments and overpayment, was amended, before its final rejection on that ground, so that it set forth in detail the facts showing overassessment as they had been revealed by the Bureau's own investigation. 2. Rulings as to what amendments of pleadings may (or may not) by relation avoid the bar of an intervening limitation, and as to what, in that connection, is but a revised statement of the same cause of action and what the substitution of a new one, furnish helpful analogies, though subordinate to administrative considerations, in determining the effect of an amendment of a claim for refund before the Commissioner. P. 67. 3. To give effect by relation to the amendment here in question harmonizes with the Commissioner's practice of reauditing returns when refunds are claimed ( Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281), and particularly with his action in entertaining the original claim (instead of rejecting it promptly for defect of form,) examining completely the taxpayer's business, and announcing that the overassessments so found would be rectified. P. 69. 4. The function of a statute limiting the time within which claims may be presented is to give protection against stale demands; the function of a regulation making provision as to the form of claims is to facilitate research; the line dividing the two functions should be kept a sharp one. P. 71. 5. Notice by the Deputy Commissioner to a taxpayer that his claim for refund would be rejected and that the rejection would be officially announced in a schedule to be approved thereafter, held not a final rejection. P. 72. 75 Ct. Cls. 195; 59 F.2d 276, affirmed.

CERTIORARI to review a recovery of overpayments of income taxes.

Assistant Attorney General Rugg, with whom Solicitor General Thacher and Messrs. Whitney North Seymour, Bradley B. Gilman, and Wm. H. Riley, Jr., were on the brief, for the United States. Mr. Walter E. Barton for respondent.


Respondent, the plaintiff in the court below, brought suit against the United States in the Court of Claims to recover overpayments of incomes taxes for the years 1922 and 1923. The government opposed recovery upon the ground that the claims filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the refund of the tax were too general and indefinite to comply with the provisions of the statutes and regulations, and that amendment came too late. The Court of Claims gave judgment in favor of the taxpayer. 59 F.2d 276. A writ of certiorari brings the case here.

The central question in the controversy can be stated in a sentence: May a claim for a tax refund which has been seasonably filed, but which fails to state the grounds upon which the refund is demanded, be amended by specifying the grounds at any time before the claim in its original form has been finally rejected, though it be after the time when a wholly new claim would be barred by limitation?

The respondent made and filed its income tax returns for 1922 and 1923 in accordance with the statute. It paid the last instalment of the earlier tax on December 7, 1923, and the last instalment of the later one on December 6, 1924. Claims for refund of overpayments were filed in June, 1927, within the time prescribed by law.

In the refund claim for 1922 there was a statement of the amount of the tax paid ($25,626.25), a statement of the correct amount due ($24,296.56), a statement that there had been overpaid in error $1,329.69, and a request for refund of that amount with interest as provided by law, or such greater amount as might be legally refundable. Attached to the claim was the following summary of the method of computation: net income, $194,372.46; 12 1/2 per cent, $24,296.56; previously paid, $25,626.25; overpaid, $1,329.69. There was no other specification of supporting facts or reasons.

In the refund claim for 1923 the claimant followed the same form that was used for 1922, but with appropriate changes of the figures. The overpayment was stated to be $1,813.39, and there was a request for the return of that amount or of any greater amount due.

Upon receipt of these claims, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in order to pass upon the merits, made an investigation and an audit of the claimant's books and records for 1922 and 1923 through a duly appointed agent. The agent reported to the Commissioner that there had been overassessments for both years, the excess being fixed at $1,660.70 for 1922 and $4,835.76 for 1923. Thereupon a Deputy Commissioner notified the taxpayer in writing under date of October 13, 1928, that its refund claims had been considered, that the taxes had been readjusted in accordance with the new audit, and that the overassessments for the two years would be made the subject of certificates of overassessment, which would be transmitted in due course through the office of the appropriate collector. Nothing further was said or done as to the matter till January 26, 1929, when the same Deputy Commissioner who had signed the notice last mentioned, transmitted to the taxpayer another notice that the claims were defective in form in that they failed to satisfy the requirements of the Treasury Regulations. After quoting the pertinent provisions, he stated: "Since the information on file with the claims does not meet the requirements" of the regulations, "and the claims do not indicate [ i.e., apart from the investigations of the Revenue Agent] that the taxes have been illegally assessed, they will be rejected. The rejection will officially appear in a schedule to be approved by the Commissioner." Thereupon the claimant, protesting that an amendment was unnecessary, filed a new claim with the Commissioner on April 2, 1929, in which the facts were set forth in detail. The Commissioner gave final notice of rejection on October 23, 1929, placing his ruling on the ground that the claims as first presented were defective and irregular. In this suit by the taxpayer, the Court of Claims has given judgment for the moneys overpaid.

Statutes make it necessary that claims for the refunding or crediting of any internal revenue tax erroneously or illegally assessed or collected shall be presented to the Commissioner within a prescribed period of time and prohibit allowance of the claims if these conditions are not satisfied. Revenue Act of 1926, § 284(b). Statutes also provide that no suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of such a tax "until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue according to the provisions of law in that regard, and the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury established in pursuance thereof." Revenue Act of 1921, § 1318 as amended by Act of March 4, 1923, c. 276. During the period of these transactions, there had been promulgated under the Revenue Act of 1921 and was continuously in force a treasury regulation which provides as follows: "Claims by the taxpayer for the refunding of taxes and penalties erroneously or illegally collected shall be made on Form 843. In this case the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. All the facts relied upon in support of the claim should be clearly set forth under oath." Treasury Regulations 62, Article 1036.

A later regulation, different in form, is applicable to claims filed on or after May 1, 1929. Treasury Decision 4265, Cumulative Bulletin VIII — 1, p. 110.

The claim for refund filed with the Commissioner in June, 1927, was not subject to rejection on the score of the time of its submission. As to this the parties are agreed. Indefinite and general it was, and hence, until amended or supplemented, an inadequate compliance with the Treasury requirement that the facts relied upon in support of a claim are to be stated under oath. Beyond doubt it might have been rejected as irregular while its form was uncorrected. This is far from saying that there was the presentation of a new claim and not the perfecting of an old one when the gaps were filled thereafter.

Official statistics indicate that "eighty-five 20/100 per cent of all the overassessments are attributable to clerical or bookkeeping adjustments or to causes beyond the control of either the Treasury or the taxpayer, that is to adjustments after the payment of taxes based upon causes which could not fairly be considered prior to the payment." Refunds and Credits of Internal Revenue Taxes, Report of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation, 1929, pursuant to § 710 of the Revenue Act of 1928, H. Doc. No. 43, Supplement to Part II, p. 29. Cf. H. Doc. No. 478, 71st Cong., 2d Sess. (1930). These statistics, covering adjustments of taxes under the Act of 1928, give support to the conclusion that in determining the application of a statute of limitations the word "claim" should be interpreted with reasonable liberality.

Both the government and the taxpayer invoke analogies suggested by pleadings in a lawsuit. The general rule is said to be that an amendment of a pleading will take effect by relation and thus relieve against the bar of an intervening limitation if the identity of the cause of action is still substantially the same, but that the limitation will prevail if under the guise of an amendment there is the substitution of a new cause of action in place of another wholly different. Baltimore O.S.W.R. Co. v. Carroll, 280 U.S. 491; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Renn, 241 U.S. 290, 293; Harriss v. Tams, 258 N.Y. 229, 242; 179 N.E. 476. The analogy is helpful, yet it will confuse, instead of helping, if we do not insist at the beginning upon a definition of our terms or at least a recognition of their shifting meanings. A "cause of action" may mean one thing for one purpose and something different for another. It may mean one thing when the question is whether it is good upon demurrer, and something different when there is a question of the amendment of a pleading or of the application of the principle of res judicata. Cf. Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Schendel, 270 U.S. 611, 617; Baltimore S.S. Co. v. Phillips, 274 U.S. 316, 321. At times and in certain contexts, it is identified with the infringement of a right or the violation of a duty. At other times and in other contexts, it is a concept of the law of remedies, the identity of the cause being then dependent on that of the form of action or the writ. Another aspect reveals it as something separate from writs and remedies, the group of operative facts out of which a grievance has developed. This court has not committed itself to the view that the phrase is susceptible of any single definition that will be independent of the context or of the relation to be governed. None the less, it has fixed the limits of amendment with increasing liberality. A change of the legal theory of the action, "a departure from law to law," has at times been offered as a test. Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Wyler, 158 U.S. 285, 295. Later decisions have made it clear that this test is no longer accepted as one of general validity. Thus, in Missouri, Kansas Texas Ry. Co. v. Wulf, 226 U.S. 570, plaintiff suing in her individual capacity under a Kansas statute for her son's death was allowed to amend to sue as administratrix under the Federal Employers' Liability Act after the statute of limitations would have barred another action. In New York Central H.R.R. Co. v. Kinney, 260 U.S. 340, there was in substance the same ruling. In Friederichsen v. Renard, 247 U.S. 207, a cause of action by a defrauded buyer to set aside a contract was turned into a cause of action to recover damages for deceit. "Of course an argument can be made on the other side, but where a defendant has had notice from the beginning that the plaintiff sets up and is trying to enforce a claim against it because of specified conduct, the reasons for the statute of limitations do not exist, and we are of opinion that a liberal rule should be applied." New York Central H.R.R. Co. v. Kinney, supra, p. 346.

The uncertainties of the phrase have been well developed by Dean Clark with full citation of the decisions in his treatise on Code Pleading, pp. 75-87, 501-508.

Clark, Code Pleading, p. 81 and cases there cited. Pomeroy, Code Remedies, 4th ed., § 347.

Clark, supra, p. 502, and cases there cited.

Clark, supra, pp. 83, 84, 505, and cases there cited.

Other cases are collected by Clark, supra, pp. 504, 505.

With this background of analogy, we reach the specific problem that calls for answer here. The respondent filed a claim for taxes overpaid, a claim for money had and received to his use by the agents of the government. The identity of the cause of action may be said in one aspect to depend upon the mere fact of overpayment, the existence of a net balance owing to the taxpayer after the ascertainment of all items of debit and of credit. In another aspect it may be said to depend upon the identity of the items illegally exacted, and hence upon the particular grounds that determine illegality. Choice between these meanings must avoid a doctrinaire adherence to abstract definitions. It must keep in view the realities of administrative practice, for its effect will be to regulate the conduct of administrative officers. Definitions and analogies borrowed from pleadings in a lawsuit will have their place and recognition, but in due subordination to differences of end and aim. Viewing the problem thus, we must say whether a statement by the taxpayer of supporting facts and reasons is to be assimilated to a bill of particulars explanatory of a claim, or is something so essential that there can be no claim without it.

Our decision in Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, goes far to point the answer. The court there ruled that upon a claim for the refund of a tax because of the disallowance of a particular deduction, the Commissioner might sustain the result by the disallowance of another deduction, and this though the time had gone by within which he would have been at liberty, if a claim had not been filed, to make a new assessment. The court applied the analogy of a common law action for money had and received. "The ultimate question presented for decision upon a claim for refund, is whether the taxpayer has overpaid his tax. This involves a redetermination of the entire tax liability." No matter though the claim for refund be specific and limited, the Commissioner is at liberty to audit the return afresh and to strike a new balance as the facts may then appear. Commonly, though, it seems, not always, a general audit will be necessary or will be at least a wise precaution, whether the claim is broad or narrow, if the government is to have the benefit of any compensating adjustments. There is little doubt that this conception of duty and of prudence has had recognition and emphasis in administrative practice.

Compare Report of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation, 1928, pursuant to § 1203 of the Revenue Act of 1926, vol. III, pp. 25, 30.

The practice is portrayed in action in the pages of this record. We are there informed in a striking way of the actual procedure where a notice, general in its terms, is not rejected at the beginning for irregularity of form, but is considered on the merits. At once upon the filing of the claim for refund, there was an order for the complete examination of the business of the taxpayer, to the end that the net amount of its tax liability might be reported to the Bureau. Every claim put forward in its amended notice has been investigated, every fact alleged in its behalf has been verified and found. The files of the Bureau contain the report of an examiner informing his superior that the tax has been overpaid, and the files of the taxpayer contain an official notice that the overassessment is recognized and that justice will be done. Of a sudden, at the end, the discovery is made that the inquiry is mere futility because the notice starting it in motion has departed in form from the requirements of a rule.

In the light thus supplied by the practice of the Bureau and the analogy of pleadings, the way is cleared for a conclusion. The line of division must be kept a sharp one between the function of a statute requiring the presentation of a claim within a given period of time, and the function of a regulation making provision as to form. The function of the statute, like that of limitations generally, is to give protection against stale demands. The function of the regulation is to facilitate research. The Commissioner has the remedy in his own hands if the claim as presented is so indefinite as to cause embarrassment to him or to others in his Bureau. He may disallow the claim promptly for a departure from the rule. If, however, he holds it without action until the form has been corrected, and still more clearly if he hears it, and hears it on the merits, what is before him is not a double claim, but a claim single and indivisible, the new indissolubly welded into the structure of the old.

The cases in this court are not at all at variance with the conclusion now arrived at, though they leave the problem open. Tucker v. Alexander, 275 U.S. 228, holds that it is within the power of the Commissioner to waive the objection that the supporting facts or reasons have not been stated in the claim. United States v. Felt Tarrant Co., 283 U.S. 269, holds that a defective claim for refund will not supply a basis for a suit against the government when there has been neither waiver by the Commissioner nor amendment by the taxpayer. Bonwit Teller Co. v. United States, 283 U.S. 258, holds that a letter from the taxpayer, accompanied by a form of waiver requested by the Bureau, will be the equivalent of a notice of claim if the Commissioner has so treated it.

The cases in the lower federal courts may not be wholly harmonious as to the extent to which amendments are allowable after the running of the statute, but there is general agreement that the applicable analogy is to be found in the rules governing the amendment of a pleading. McKesson Robbins, Inc. v. Edwards, 57 F.2d 147; Art Metal Construction Co. v. United States, 47 F.2d 558; Lancaster Cotton Mills v. United States, 59 F.2d 270; Lehigh Wilkes Barre Coal Co. v. United States, 38 F.2d 637. Cf. Peruna Co., 11 B.T.A. 1180, 1189; Sevier v. Commissioner, 14 B.T.A. 709, 716.

One other question, less general in its significance, is yet to be considered. An argument is made that at the time of this amendment the claim had been finally rejected and the proceeding thereby ended. If so, it was too late. McKesson Robbins v. Edwards, supra; Solomon v. United States, 57 F.2d 150. When correction is thus postponed, there is no longer anything to amend, any more than in a lawsuit after the complaint has been dismissed. We think the matter was still in fieri. True the Deputy Commissioner had given notice to the taxpayer that the claims would be rejected, and that the rejection would be officially announced in a schedule to be approved thereafter. No reason is apparent why at any time before such approval the Commissioner or his Deputy was not at liberty to recall the first announcement, and dispose of the case otherwise. Michel v. United States, 37 F.2d 38, reversed, but on other grounds, 282 U.S. 656. We are not now considering what the practice ought to be if there were need to open the proceeding for the submission of other evidence extrinsic to the claims themselves. Neither in the record nor in the argument do we find a suggestion of that need. Long before the amendment the Commissioner had ascertained the facts and had even notified the taxpayer of the justice of its claims and of the ruling of the Bureau that adjustments would be made accordingly. The dismissal of the claims, when finally announced, was for defects of form only. The defects had been corrected, and the dismissal may not stand.

We find it unnecessary to determine whether the conduct of the Commissioner in investigating the claims upon their merits and reporting to the claimant the result of his inquiry was a waiver of defects of form which would call for the return of overpayments though no amendment had been offered.

The judgment is

Affirmed.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co.

U.S.
Jan 9, 1933
288 U.S. 62 (1933)

holding that the USA waives claims where it considers them during a refund claim but does not dispute them

Summary of this case from Skidmore v. Internal Revenue Serv.

finding waiver where the IRS, after initially concluding that a refund was due on a claim, reversed its position and determined that the initial claim was improperly filed, after the limitations period expired for filing a corrected claim

Summary of this case from Cencast Servs., L.P. v. United States

finding waiver where the IRS, after initially concluding that a refund was due on a claim, reversed its position and determined that the initial claim was improperly filed, after the limitations period expired for filing a corrected claim

Summary of this case from Cencast Servs., L.P. v. United States

In United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co., 288 U.S. 62, the claim merely stated that there had been an erroneous overpayment the amount of which was shown by stating the taxpayer's true net income, the tax due thereon, and the amount previously paid.

Summary of this case from United States v. Andrews

In Memphis Cotton, the Supreme Court found a waiver where (during investigation of the taxpayer's original claim and within the limitations period) the Commissioner discovered that the taxpayer was entitled to a refund on a specific ground, and notified the taxpayer that a refund would be made. 288 U.S. at 65, 73, 53 S.Ct. 278. After the limitations period expired, the Commissioner reversed its position and refused to grant the refund.

Summary of this case from Computervision Corp. v. U.S.

In United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co., 288 U.S. 62, 53 S.Ct. 278, 77 L.Ed. 619 (1933), the Court held that a claim amendment, out of time, to satisfy formal requirements had to be allowed where the Commissioner did not dismiss the claim on the basis of the formal defects, but had in fact investigated and allowed the claim on the merits, prior to asserting the defects as a basis for rejection.

Summary of this case from Vishnevsky v. United States

In United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co., 288 U.S. 62, at page 71, 53 S.Ct. 278, at page 281, 77 L.Ed. 619, Mr. Justice Cardozo noted that "The function of the regulation is to facilitate research."

Summary of this case from Dale Distributing Company v. C.I.R

In United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co., 288 U.S. 62, 53 S.Ct. 278, 77 L.Ed. 619, a general claim was filed in due time which merely stated that there had been an overpayment of tax of a named amount, without specifying the supporting facts or reasons, as required by the Treasury Regulations. Upon receipt of the claim the Commissioner made an audit to pass upon the merits, and ascertained an overpayment in excess of the amount claimed.

Summary of this case from United States v. Baltimore O.R. Co.

In United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co., 288 U.S. 62, 67, 68, 53 S.Ct. 278, 280, 77 L.Ed. 619, the court said: "A `cause of action' may mean one thing for one purpose and something different for another. It may mean one thing when the question is whether it is good upon demurrer, and something different when there is a question of the amendment of a pleading or of the application of the principle of res judicata."

Summary of this case from Hammond-Knowlton v. United States

In United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co., 288 U.S. 62, 53 S.Ct. 278, 77 L. Ed. 619; United States v. Henry Prentiss Co., 288 U.S. 73, 53 S.Ct. 283, 77 L.Ed. 626; United States v. Factors Finance Co., 288 U.S. 89, 53 S.Ct. 287, 77 L.Ed. 633; and Bemis Bros. Bag Co. v. United States, 289 U.S. 28, 53 S.Ct. 454, 77 L.Ed. 1011, the Supreme Court passed upon various phases of this question.

Summary of this case from Allegheny Heating Co. v. Lewellyn

In United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co., 288 U.S. 62, 71, 53 S.Ct. 278, 77 L.Ed. 619 (1933), the Supreme Court held that a general claim for refund is subject to amendment until final rejection by the IRS, irrespective of the running of the statute of limitations.

Summary of this case from Rogers v. U.S.

In Memphis, the Supreme Court held that an informal claim that sets out the legal and factual grounds for relief tolls the statute of limitations even if not formally perfected.

Summary of this case from Crocker v. United States

In United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Company, 288 U.S. 62, 53 S.Ct. 278, 281, 77 L.Ed. 619, a claim for tax refund had been seasonably filed, but it failed to state the grounds upon which the refund was demanded.

Summary of this case from Durkee Famous Foods, Inc. v. Harrison

In United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Company, 288 U.S. 62, 53 S.Ct. 278, 77 L. Ed. 619, the taxpayer filed a claim for refund which failed to state the ground on which the refund was demanded.

Summary of this case from University Distributing Co. v. United States

In United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Company, 288 U.S. 62, 53 S. Ct. 278, 281, 77 L. Ed. 619 (January 9, 1933), the court said: "The Commissioner has the remedy in his own hands if the claim as presented is so indefinite as to cause embarrassment to him or to others in his Bureau.

Summary of this case from Weihman v. United States

stating that amendments should be liberally allowed and that a change of the legal theory of an action is no longer accepted as a test of the propriety of a proposed amendment

Summary of this case from In re Weber

In United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co., 288 U.S. 62, a timely claim was filed, constituting in essence a bare demand for a refund in a stated amount.

Summary of this case from Hewitt-Robins Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

In United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co., 288 U.S. 62, the Supreme Court held that where the original claim did not rely upon any specific basis for the relief sought, but was a broad and general claim for refund, it could be amended after expiration of the time within which an original claim could have been filed, so as to specify a particular ground for relief.

Summary of this case from Burwell Motor Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

In United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co., 288 U.S. 62, 67-8, 77 L.Ed. 619, 623 (1933), Justice CARDOZO remarked: "A 'cause of action' may mean one thing for one purpose and something different for another. It may mean one thing when the question is whether it is good upon demurrer, and something different when there is a question of the amendment of a pleading or of the application of the principle of res judicata.... At times and in certain contexts, it is identified with the infringement of a right or the violation of a duty.

Summary of this case from Kuisis v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp.

In U.S. v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co., 288 U.S. 62, 67, 77 L. ed. 619, Mr. Justice Cardozo stated: "A 'cause of action' may mean one thing for one purpose and something different for another.... At times and in certain contexts, it is identified with the infringement of a right or the violation of a duty.

Summary of this case from Smith v. Fenner

In United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co., 288 U.S. 62, 53 S.Ct. 278, 280, 77 L.Ed. 619, Cardozo, J,. states that the term "cause of action" "may mean one thing when the question is whether it is good upon demurrer, and something different when there is a question of the amendment of a pleading or of the application of the principal of res judicata."

Summary of this case from Hartford Accident Indemnity Co. v. Clegg

In Memphis Cotton, the taxpayer's original refund claim lacked the required definiteness. Nevertheless, the commission, without knowledge of the defect, proceeded with its investigation and concluded that an overpayment had been made, only to later discover that the original refund claim had been irregular in form.

Summary of this case from Kaiser Engineers, Inc. v. Limbach
Case details for

U.S. v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co.

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES v . MEMPHIS COTTON OIL CO

Court:U.S.

Date published: Jan 9, 1933

Citations

288 U.S. 62 (1933)
53 S. Ct. 278
77 L. Ed. 619

Citing Cases

Computervision Corp. v. U.S.

The Supreme Court has held that in some circumstances a taxpayer's claim is not barred by the statute of…

Tobin v. Tomlinson

"This Court, applying the statute and regulations, has often held that a notice fairly advising the…