- 31 -
United States, supra, because the single-transaction requirement
was not satisfied. The District Court, relying upon United
States v. Herring, supra, dismissed that argument because the
same money was involved in both the claim for the income tax
deficiency and the claim for estate tax. See Bowcut v. United
States, 175 F. Supp. at 222.
On affirming the District Court, the Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit did not consider the single-transaction issue,
as the Government appealed primarily on other grounds, which the
court rejected, for denying equitable recoupment. See United
States v. Bowcut, 287 F.2d at 656-657 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1961).
Although the Court of Appeals did not consider whether the
single-transaction requirement was satisfied, it did note that
"In this case the taxpayer emphasizes that she is seeking to
recover the overassessment of estate tax by recoupment from the
very fund which, taken from the estate, had brought about the
fact of overassessment." Id. at 656.
Years after United States v. Herring, supra, and United
States v. Bowcut, supra, were decided, the Commissioner accepted
the logic of these decisions and agreed in Rev. Rul. 71-56, 1971-
1 C.B. 404, to apply equitable recoupment in these
circumstances.16 Despite the statement of administrative
16Rev. Rul. 71-56, 1971-1 C.B. 404, 470, revoked Rev. Rul.
55-226, 1955-1 C.B. 469, which ruled, citing Rothensies v.
(continued...)
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011