Frank Murphy

“ Insofar as material here, § 1113 (a) provides: '* * * No (suit or proceeding for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected) shall be begun * * * after the expiration of five years from the date of the payment of such tax * * * unless such suit or proceeding is begun within two years after the disallowance of the part of such claim to which such suit or proceeding relates.'
Undoubtedly, respondent has failed to begin its action within either of the periods specified in § 1113 (a) . See A. S. Kreider Co. v. ”

“ The suit was not instituted until March 7, 1932, although the last tax payment was made on July 26, 1926, and the claim for refund was disallowed in October, 1929. [2] But as already stated, the court below held that the action was not barred because the Tucker Act (24 Stat. 505) , later incorporated in § 24 (20) of the Judicial Code, rather than § 1113 (a) prescribed the period within which respondent was bound to bring suit. We view the statutes differently.
Section 24 (20) gives the district courts jurisdiction concurrent with the court of claims of certain suits against the United States. ”

“ United States, supra, does not remove the bar of § 1113 (a) here. There we held under the peculiar facts disclosed that the taxpayer could evade the limitations of that section by grounding its action on a subsequent 'account stated' rather than on the original, wrongful overassessment. ”