- 28 -
its prior opinion in Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247 (1935),
in which it had applied the doctrine of equitable recoupment by
noting that in Bull equitable recoupment was raised as a defense
to the Government’s claims in a suit over which the Court clearly
had jurisdiction. The Court explained:
A distinction that has jurisdiction as its central
concept is not meaningless. In Bull, the executor
sought equitable recoupment of the estate tax in an
action for refund of income tax, over which it was
undisputed that the Court of Claims had jurisdiction.
See n.4, supra. All that was at issue was whether the
Court of Claims, in the interests of equity, could
adjust the income tax owed to the Government to take
account of an estate tax paid in error but which the
executor could not recover in a separate refund action.
Here, Dalm does not seek to invoke equitable recoupment
in determining her income tax liability; she has
already litigated that liability [in the Tax Court]
without raising a claim of equitable recoupment and is
foreclosed from relitigating it now. See �6512(a).
* * * [United States v. Dalm, supra at 606.]
Here, as in Dalm, our decision has become final. As a result,
neither we nor any other court has jurisdiction to modify the
decision.
We hold that the estate is entitled to a refund of the
$238,847.24 overpayment, plus interest on the overpayment,24 less
any amounts that respondent has previously refunded with respect
24Interest on “overpayments” is provided for by sec. 6611.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011