Hattaway

Court of Claims

Hattaway

217 Ct. Cl. 724, 42 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5333, 1978 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 186, 1978 WL 4197

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJune 27, 1978

DocketNo. 339-77

StatusPublished

This text of 217 Ct. Cl. 724 (Hattaway) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hattaway, 217 Ct. Cl. 724, 42 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5333, 1978 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 186, 1978 WL 4197 (cc 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

This tax refund suit is before the court on defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment asking that Count Two of the petition be dismissed. Taxpayers have not responded to the motion. We believe the motion to be well taken on the grounds of equitable estoppel because plaintiffs induced the defendant to accept a proposal to resolve the issue. Defendant accepted and relied upon the proposal, and the statute of limitations then expired. Plaintiffs should not be allowed to renounce an agreement defendant has relied on to its detriment. Plaintiffs are equitably estopped. Guggenheim v. United States, 111 Ct. Cl. 165, 77 F.Supp. 186 (1948), cert. denied, 335 U.S. 908 (1949).

Further, in making the refund claim on Count One, the individual income taxes, plaintiffs did not at any time raise [725]*725the issue of transferee liability now raised by suit for the first time in Count Two. This is impermissible under Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (1960), 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a) (1970), 26 C.F.R. § 301.6402-2(b)(1) (1977), the pertinent Treasury Regulation, and recently decided cases. Missouri Pac. R.R. v. United States, 214 Ct. Cl. 623, 558 F.2d 596 (1977), Fruehauf Corp. v. United States, 201 Ct. Cl. 366, 477 F.2d 568 (1973).

it is therefore ordered, upon consideration of defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment (plaintiffs being in default in answering thereto), and without oral argument, that defendant’s motion is granted and Count Two of the petition is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This tax refund suit is before the court on defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment asking that Count Two of the petition be dismissed. Taxpayers have not responded to the motion. We believe the motion to be well taken on the grounds of equitable estoppel because plaintiffs induced the defendant to accept a proposal to resolve the issue. Defendant accepted and relied upon the proposal, and the statute of limitations then expired. Plaintiffs should not be allowed to renounce an agreement defendant has relied on to its detriment. Plaintiffs are equitably estopped. Guggenheim v. United States, 111 Ct. Cl. 165, 77 F.Supp. 186 (1948), cert. denied, 335 U.S. 908 (1949).

Further, in making the refund claim on Count One, the individual income taxes, plaintiffs did not at any time raise [725]*725the issue of transferee liability now raised by suit for the first time in Count Two. This is impermissible under Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (1960), 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a) (1970), 26 C.F.R. § 301.6402-2(b)(1) (1977), the pertinent Treasury Regulation, and recently decided cases. Missouri Pac. R.R. v. United States, 214 Ct. Cl. 623, 558 F.2d 596 (1977), Fruehauf Corp. v. United States, 201 Ct. Cl. 366, 477 F.2d 568 (1973).

it is therefore ordered, upon consideration of defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment (plaintiffs being in default in answering thereto), and without oral argument, that defendant’s motion is granted and Count Two of the petition is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 Ct. Cl. 724, 42 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5333, 1978 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 186, 1978 WL 4197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hattaway-cc-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack