Pierce Butler

“ If the protest was sufficient under section 1324 (a) , interest should have been calculated on the amount of the refund from the date of the payment of the taxes. The lower court held it valid. In order to meet the condition specified in section 1324 (a) , the payment must be made 'under a specific protest setting forth in detail the basis of and reasons for such protest.' The findings set forth its language. The grounds asserted were that the taxing acts were ambiguous, uncertain and unconstitutional; that they did not apply to respondent ”

“ July 2, 1924, after the passage of the Revenue Act of that year, the Commissioner wrote respondent that the amounts stated in his letter of January 18, 1924-corrected by reason of an error as to the date of filing the claim for refund of 1917 taxes-would be paid, and on July 18, 1924, issued a treasury warrant to respondent for $35,369.05, being $19,171.21 on the refund of 1916 taxes and $16,197.84 on the refund of 1917 taxes. Respondent, saving its right to sue for additional interest, accepted payment of the amount specified, and later brought this suit. ”

“ But, as the merits of that contention depend upon ambiguous findings above referred to, the lower court should again consider the case and make definite determination of the controlling facts and give judgment thereon. ”