- 22 -                                                  
            been due from the estate even considering the overpayment                                  
            attributable to the allowance of the credit.  As it turned out,                            
            the additional estate tax attributable to the revaluation of the                           
            shares was less than the overpayment resulting from the estate's                           
            failure to claim the credit on its return, and the estate is                               
            therefore due a refund.                                                                    
                  Petitioner argues that it should be allowed to recoup                                
            against the additional estate tax attributable to the revaluation                          
            of the shares ($957,099) the amount of income tax overpaid on                              
            their sale ($265,999).  The majority would allow equitable                                 
            recoupment only if there were an overall deficiency in tax after                           
            taking into account all issues in the case (other than the                                 
            equitable recoupment claim).  I agree with Judge Beghe that the                            
            recoupment claim should be allowed so long as it did not exceed                            
            the additional tax due as a result of the increased valuation of                           
            the shares; i.e. recoupment should be applied to correct the                               
            error on a transactional basis, not just on the basis of whether                           
            some amount is finally determined to be owed to the party who                              
            received the windfall.                                                                     
                  Recoupment has been characterized as a counterclaim or                               
            defense against asserted liability relating to the same                                    
            transaction, item, or event upon which the main action is                                  
            grounded.  Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258, 264 (1993); United                              
            States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 605 n.5, 608 (1990); Bull v. United                          
            States, 295 U.S. 247, 262 (1935).  The doctrine is designed to                             
Page:  Previous   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   NextLast modified: May 25, 2011