- 21 -
through 1926 in the taxpayer's 1935 income had no logical
connection. The erroneous failure to include the excise tax
refund in income for 1935 is not the same transaction as
erroneously paying excise taxes in 1919 through mid-1922.
Furthermore, there was no transactional nexus between the time-
barred excise taxes paid in 1919 through mid-1922 and the
refunded excise taxes paid in 1922 through 1926, which the
taxpayer was required to include in income in 1935.
The Supreme Court has not decided a case based on the
single-transaction requirement since Rothensies v. Electric
Storage Battery Co., supra. In a recent case, United States v.
Dalm, 494 U.S. 596 (1990), the Court held that equitable
recoupment could only be used defensively, and the Court stated
that since Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247 (1935), it has
emphasized "that a claim of equitable recoupment will lie only
where the Government has taxed a single transaction, item, or
taxable event under two inconsistent theories." United States v.
Dalm, supra at 605 n.5.
Consequently, the interpretation and application of the
single-transaction requirement has been left to the lower courts,
which has resulted in conflicting authority.
The cases on which petitioner mainly relies are Boyle v.
United States, 355 F.2d 233 (3d Cir. 1965), revg. and remanding
per curiam 232 F. Supp. 543 (D.N.J. 1964); O'Brien v. United
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011