- 26 -
BEGHE, J., dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I believe
this case satisfies all requirements for equitable recoupment.
In particular, petitioner's overpayment posture, which results
from a completely unrelated, fortuitous issue, should not prevent
recoupment.
The majority has created a new rule about offensive use of
equitable recoupment that unnecessarily perpetuates unjust
enrichment of the Government, thwarts the fundamental purposes of
equitable recoupment, and seems likely to prevent equitable
recoupment in other cases where justice may even more clearly
require it.
I have no disagreement with the facts recited by the
majority opinion; the facts on the recoupment issue were almost
completely stipulated by the parties. However, I provide a
supplemental statement of the procedural and factual background,
both to aid understanding of the overpayment issue and to lay the
foundations for my conclusions on the other issues. Bearing in
mind equitable recoupment's objective of promoting one-stop
shopping,1 I think petitioner is now entitled to see a reasoned
opinion charting the path to the destination I would reach.
After summarizing the background, I address all the other
issues before dealing, infra pp. 69-97, with the overpayment
issue; my rejoinder to the majority opinion begins infra p. 72.
1Mueller v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 551, 563-564 (1993)
(Halpern, J., concurring).
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011