Estate of Bessie I. Mueller, Deceased, John S. Mueller, Personal Representative - Page 79

                                               - 79 -                                                  
            Pfeiffer Co. v. United States, 518 F.2d 124, 128-130 (8th Cir.                             
            1975) (pending refund suit in District Court does not render                               
            statutory notice and resulting deficiency assessment invalid);                             
            Bar L Ranch v. Phinney, 400 F.2d 90, 92 (5th Cir. 1968) (pending                           
            refund suit in District Court does not render statutory notice                             
            and resulting deficiency assessment invalid); Florida v. United                            
            States, 285 F.2d 596, 602-604 (8th Cir. 1960) (pending refund                              
            suits in District Court do not prevent Government action in                                
            different District Court  to enforce payment of taxes).  Most of                           
            these cases cite dictum to the same effect in Flora v. United                              
            States, 362 U.S. 145, 166 (1960).33  If these counterclaims are                            
            not compulsory and thus can be the basis of a separate action,                             
            tax cases can be split, at least for some purposes.                                        


                  33"Moreover, if [the taxpayer] decides to remain in the                              
            District Court, the Government may--but seemingly is not required                          
            to--bring a counterclaim; and if it does, the taxpayer has the                             
            burden of proof."  [Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 166                              
            (1960); fn. ref. omitted.]                                                                 
                  With respect to Flora v. United States, supra, it's                                  
            interesting to observe that that case's central holding, that                              
            refund suits can only be brought when taxes have been paid in                              
            full, was, like Rothensies v. Electric Storage Battery Co., 329                            
            U.S. 296 (1946), largely motivated by the desire not to divert                             
            large numbers of tax cases from this Court to the district                                 
            courts.  Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. at 175-176.  After                               
            United States v. Dalm, supra, and Mueller II, we won't divert tax                          
            cases to the district courts if we refrain from holding that the                           
            credit for prior taxes is part of the same claim or cause of                               
            action for the purpose of permitting equitable recoupment any                              
            more than we'll divert them by refusing to allow a narrow reading                          
            of the single-transaction issue (the issue in Rothensies v.                                
            Electric Storage Battery Co., supra) to block equitable                                    
            recoupment.  See infra pp. 42-60 discussing the single-                                    
            transaction issue.                                                                         




Page:  Previous  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011