Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantstatuteappealstatute of limitations
statuteappealwill

Related Cases

State ex rel. McDougall v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa, 186 Ariz. 218, 920 P.2d 784
View Case »
Robinson v. State, 373 So.2d 898
View Case »
George v. Caton, 93 N.M. 370, 600 P.2d 822, 1979-NMCA-028
View Case »
Loving v. I.R.S., 742 F.3d 1013, 408 U.S.App.D.C. 281, 113 A.F.T.R.2d 2014-867, 2014-1 USTC P 50,175
View Case »
Herrera-Corral v. Hyman, 408 Ill.App.3d 672, 948 N.E.2d 242, 350 Ill.Dec. 173
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Russell v. United States, 278 U.S. 181, 49 S.Ct. 121, 73 L.Ed. 255, 1 USTC P 345, 7 A.F.T.R. 8839

Facts

In January 1925, the United States filed a bill against Benjamin Russell and other stockholders of the Pine Lumber Company to recover additional income and profit taxes for the year 1918. The Pine Lumber Company had made a tax return on June 12, 1919, and paid the indicated amount. The defendants argued that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations, which the District Court initially upheld, but the Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed this decision.

The company made a return to the collector for 1918 on June 12, 1919, and afterwards paid the amount indicated thereby.

Issue

Whether the suit brought by the United States against the stockholders of the Pine Lumber Company for additional taxes was barred by the statute of limitations.

Petitioners claimed the suit was barred under the limitation specified by the applicable statute.

Rule

The Revenue Act of 1918 required that both assessment and suit for tax collection be initiated within five years after the return was due. The Revenue Act of 1924 modified these provisions, allowing for different time frames for assessments and suits depending on when they were made.

Under the act of 1918, both assessment and suit within five years were necessary.

Analysis

The court analyzed the relevant statutory provisions, particularly focusing on the limitations set forth in the Revenue Acts of 1918, 1921, and 1924. It determined that the assessment made in March 1924 fell within the five-year limitation period established by the earlier acts, and that the exceptions provided in the 1924 Act did not apply retroactively to assessments made before June 2, 1924.

The court analyzed the relevant statutory provisions, particularly focusing on the limitations set forth in the Revenue Acts of 1918, 1921, and 1924.

Conclusion

The court reversed the District Court's dismissal of the United States' suit and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the United States to pursue the tax collection.

The judgment is reversed. The cause will be remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found that the statute of limitations did not bar the suit for tax collection, as the assessment was made within the allowable time frame.

The Circuit Court of Appeals held another view, and reversed the decree dismissing the bill.

You must be