- 47 -
Despite the statement of administrative position in Rev.
Rul. 71-56, supra, respondent has chosen, in the case at hand, to
hang her hat on contrary decisions of the old Court of Claims.
In Wilmington Trust Co. v. United States, 221 Ct. Cl. 686, 610
F.2d 703 (1979), in two consolidated cases, the Commissioner
assessed income tax deficiencies against the taxpayers after
their deaths, and the executors deducted the income taxes paid as
claims against the decedents’ gross estates. In the subsequent
refund suits to recover the income tax payments, the Commissioner
sought, through equitable recoupment of the time-barred estate
tax deficiencies, to reduce the refunds. In both cases, the
trial judges, citing Herring v. United States, supra, Bowcut v.
United States, supra, and Rev. Rul. 71-56, found that the single-
transaction requirement had been satisfied, and recommended
decision for the Government. Wilmington Trust Co. v. United
States, 43 AFTR 2d 79-801, 79-1 USTC par. 9223 (Ct. Cl. Trial
Div. 1979); McMullan v. United States, 42 AFTR 2d 78-5723, 78-2
USTC par. 9656 (Ct. Cl. Trial Div. 1978). The Court of Claims
reversed and remanded both cases, stating that it was obliged by
Rothensies v. Electric Storage Battery Co., 329 U.S. 296 (1946),
to give the single-transaction requirement a narrow, inflexible
interpretation. Wilmington Trust Co. v. United States, 610 F.2d
at 713. In these consolidated cases, unlike Herring and Bowcut--
and unlike the case at hand--it was the Government that was
seeking equitable recoupment.
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011