Summary

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone Royal Indemnity Company v. United States…

But the rule governing the interest to be recovered as damages for delayed payment of a contractual obligation to the United States is not controlled by state statute or local common law. In the absence of an applicable federal statute it is for the federal courts to determine, according to their own criteria, the appropriate measure of damage, expressed in terms of interest, for non-payment of the amount found to be due.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone Royal Indemnity Company v. United States…

I agree with the Court's judgment that the Collector of Internal Revenue did not have power to release a taxpayer from his obligation to pay, but I am unable to agree with the Court's conclusions on the question of interest. The contract on which the Government's suit rests contained no provision for interest. The state's interest law, according to the holding of the Court, is not controlling. Congress has enacted no law requiring payment of interest and fixing an interest rate on contracts guaranteeing tax payments.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature