John Paul Stevens

Name: United States v. Dalm — Dissenting Opinion
Author: John Paul Stevens

United States v. Dalm — Dissenting Opinion

Summary

“United States v. Dalm — Dissenting Opinion”, is a work by John Paul Stevens. It explores elements such as recoupment, refund and gift tax.

Quotes from United States v. Dalm — Dissenting Opinion (John Paul Stevens)

John Paul Stevens, United States v. Dalm — Dissenting Opinion

“ The second fact is this: an affluent taxpayer, but not a less fortunate one, can pay a deficiency assessment and file suit for a refund. It is undisputed that if respondent had the means to do so, she could have recovered the gift tax that had been paid in 1976 by a refund action filed after she received the notice of income tax deficiency in 1983, even though the statute of limitations had long since run. One might infer from the posture of this case-as respondent's counsel represented to the Court-that respondent's limited means foreclosed this avenue of relief for her. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, United States v. Dalm — Dissenting Opinion

“ Had respondent paid the deficiency and asserted the claim for a gift tax refund as a second count in one action, even this Court would agree that the claim was timely. If we adopt the Court's reasoning in Bull, it is proper to treat the second count of the refund action as timely even when the income tax issues are litigated before the Tax Court, because the deficiency assessment was sufficient to put in issue the right to recoupment and to justify treating the taxpayer as a defendant, rather than a plaintiff. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, United States v. Dalm — Dissenting Opinion

“ This Court rejected the Commissioner's first argument, and characterized as follows his claim that the Government could retain the estate tax while collecting a second tax on the same transaction pursuant to an inconsistent theory: "The United States, we have held, cannot, as against the claim of an innocent party, hold his money which has gone into its treasury by means of the fraud of its agent. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, United States v. Dalm — Dissenting Opinion

“ It is not surprising that our concepts should be stressed when the Government taxes a citizen twice upon inconsistent theories and then subjects the citizen to a choice among competing fora, each of which provides only half a remedy. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, United States v. Dalm — Dissenting Opinion

“ The plain language of § 1346 (a) (1) accords jurisdiction over respondent's suit, and the terms of § 6511 (a) do not divest it. [8] The majority's affection for plain language seems to end where its devotion to sovereign immunity begins. [9]
The majority is able to complete its argument only by inventing a small, but blatant, fiction: that respondent is bringing a suit for the refund of overpaid gift tax within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 6511 (a) (1982 ed.) ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, United States v. Dalm — Dissenting Opinion

“ It is nevertheless appropriate to assume for purposes of deciding the jurisdictional issue in this case that respondent's counsel correctly believed that no recoupment could be had in the Tax Court.↑ "The ordinary defendant stands in judgment only after a hearing. The taxpayer often is afforded his hearing after judgment and after payment, and his only redress for unjust administrative action is the right to claim restitution. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, United States v. Dalm — Dissenting Opinion

“ Indeed, the Court's opinion is remarkable not at all for what it says but rather for what it leaves unsaid. The majority's passing of sovereign immunity and jurisdiction masks what is the ultimate question before us: whether a statute of limitations otherwise barring a refund of federal income tax is tolled by Government conduct that this Court has censured as "immoral" and tantamount to "a fraud on the taxpayer's rights." See Bull v. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, United States v. Dalm — Dissenting Opinion

“ United States v. State Bank, 96 U.S. 30 [24 L.Ed. 647] . While here the money was taken through mistake without any element of fraud, the unjust retention is immoral and amounts in law to a fraud on the taxpayer's rights. ”

John Paul Stevens

Summary

Quotes from United States v. Dalm — Dissenting Opinion (John Paul Stevens)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature