- 42 -
447 (1968) (fully paid refund claim can't be revived by belated
amendment after expiration of the period of limitations on the
original claim). The variance doctrine is based on a requirement
that respondent have sufficient notice of taxpayers' claims, and,
in the facts and circumstances of this case, I would conclude
that respondent did not have such sufficient notice of the 1990
claim within the statutory time limits. Cf. United States v.
Memphis Cotton Oil Co., 288 U.S. 62, 72 (1933) (suggestion that
if amendments to informal claim had been made after it had been
rejected on merits, they would have been too late); Lefrak v.
United States, 1996 WL 420308 (S.D.N.Y., July 26, 1996)
(imperfect claim that has been rejected cannot be perfected by a
later, time-barred claim lacking the defect).
2. Single Transaction
For the doctrine of equitable recoupment to apply, a single
transaction, item, or event must have been taxed twice
inconsistently. United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. at 608
(construing Bull v. United States, supra, and Stone v. White,
supra).
Although the “single transaction” requirement was mentioned
in passing in Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. at 261, it was the
stated ground for decision in Rothensies v. Electric Storage
Battery Co., 329 U.S. at 300. In that case, the taxpayer in 1935
obtained a refund of excise taxes paid for the years 1922 through
1926 that turned out not to have been due. Refunds of the type
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011