Supreme Court of the United States, 1931

Magee v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 26, 1931 · Hughes

282 U.S. 432; 51 S. Ct. 195; 75 L. Ed. 442; 1931 U.S. LEXIS 12; 1 C.B. 189; 9 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 967; 2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 652 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Theodore B. Benson, with whom Mr. William Meyerhoff was on the brief, for petitioner., Assistant Attorney General Rugg, with whom Solicitor General Thacher, Assistant Attorney General Youngquist, and Messrs. Claude R. Branch, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, George H. -Foster, and Erwin N. Gris-wold were on the brief, for the United States.

Cases that cite this one

26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Hartwell Mills v. Rose (5th Cir. 1932)
United States v. Barbara Holmes (5th Cir. 2017)
Clemon J. And Ivy C. Herrington v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (5th Cir. 1988)
Technicon Medical Information Systems Corp. v. Green Bay Packaging Inc., St. Vincent Hospital, and Leo N. Crowley (7th Cir. 1982)
Springfield Street Railway Company v. The United States (Court of Claims 1963)
State Ex Rel. Murtagh v. Department of City Civil Service (La. 1949)
Rubel Corp. v. Rasquin (District Court, E.D. New York 1942)
United States v. First Huntington Nat. Bank (District Court, S.D. West Virginia 1940)
Charlton Woolen Co. v. White (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1939)
Century Electric Co. v. United States (8th Cir. 1935)
United States v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. (9th Cir. 1935)
Commissioner v. National Land & Construction Co. (6th Cir. 1934)
Petroleum Iron Works Co. v. United States (Court of Claims 1934)
MacAndrews & Forbes Co. v. United States (Court of Claims 1934)
Warner Collieries Co. v. United States (6th Cir. 1933)
Moran v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1st Cir. 1933)
Globe Excelsior Oak Tanning Co. v. United States (Court of Claims 1933)
Booth-Boyle Live Stock Co. v. United States (Court of Claims 1933)
United States v. Root (5th Cir. 1933)
Mulford v. Commissioner (3d Cir. 1933)
Routzahn v. Petroleum Iron Works Co. of Ohio (6th Cir. 1932)
United States v. Southern Lumber Co. (8th Cir. 1931)
Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1934)
Sugar Creek Coal & Mining Co. v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1934)
Corn Products Ref. Co. v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1931)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Hughes

delivered. the opinion of the Court.

The petitioner filed his income tax return for 1916 in February, 1917. In October, 1921, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed an additional tax, and in November, 1921, the petitioner filed a claim in abatement. In 1924, the Commissioner allowed the claim in abatement for a portion of the amount claimed and rejected it as to the residue, which the petitioner then paid, upon the collector’s demand. In December, 1927, the petitioner filed a claim for refund, which was rejected, ■whereupon this suit was brought in the Court of Claims in December, 1928, to recover the amount paid. The court dismissed the action, applying section 611 of the Revenue Act of 1928 (c. 852, 45 Stat. 791, 875), 37 Fed. (2d) 763. This Court granted a writ of certiorari, 281 U. S. 713..

, The questions , presented with respect to the construction and validity of section 611 are the same as those considered in Graham v. Goodcell, ante, p. 409. The petitioner contends, however, that this section does not apply to his case, upon the ground that the tax was not assessed within the three-year period of limitation prescribed by *434 section 9 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1916 (c. 463, 39 Stat. 756, 763). The Court of Claims held that the assessment was valid under the provisions of section 250 (d) of the Act of 1921 (Act of November 23, 1921, c: 136, 42 Stat. 227, 265). We think the court was right in' construing this statute as applicable to the assessment, although previously made, and hence that the tax was assessed “within the period of limitation properly ..applicable thereto,”, as required by section 611 of the Revenue Act of 1928....

The petitioner also insists that his claim in abatement Was illegal under section 250 (d) of the Revenue Act of 1921. We do not find that there was any statutory prohibition of the filing of a claim in abatement in the circumstances here shown.' The taxpayer benefited by the claim and is not in a position to contest its legality.Compare United States v. The John Barth Company, 279 U. S. 370, 376; Florsheim Brothers Dry Goods Company, Limited, v. United States, 280 U. S. 453, 464. The case falls within section 611 of the Revenue Act of 1928 and this precludes recovery. .

Judgment affirmed.'

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.