Hyde v. United States

Court of Claims

Hyde v. United States

59 F.2d 302, 75 Ct. Cl. 502

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJune 6, 1932

DocketNo. L-326

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 59 F.2d 302 (Hyde v. United States) 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

Hyde v. United States, 59 F.2d 302, 75 Ct. Cl. 502 (cc 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

GREEN, Judge.

The plaintiff brings this suit alleging that she has overpaid her taxes for the year 1927 in the sum of $1,788.86, which she asks be refunded.

It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff has executed what is commonly called a “closing agreement” with reference to her taxes for the year 1927, stipulating the liability thereon, which agreement was executed in accordance with the provisions of section 606 of the Revenue Act of 1928, and signed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Secretary of the Treasury in March, 1929. The law provides that such agreements shall be final and conclusive, “except upon a, showing of fraud or malfeasance, or misrepresentation of a material fact.” The argument máde on behalf of plaintiff is to the effect that the amount of .gain and profit received or due plaintiff from her father’s estate was misrepresented to her by the trustees thereof, that by reason of this misrepresentation she overstated her income, and that consequently she is entitled to repudiate the agreement.

The statute does not expressly limit the misrepresentations upon which the agreement may be set aside to statements made by the agents of the government, but a reading of the context shows plainly that the statute was not intended to apply to misrepresentations made by other parties.

This construction of the law makes is unnecessary to consider the other defenses set up by the defendant. The plaintiff’s petition must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

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

GREEN, Judge.

The plaintiff brings this suit alleging that she has overpaid her taxes for the year 1927 in the sum of $1,788.86, which she asks be refunded.

It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff has executed what is commonly called a “closing agreement” with reference to her taxes for the year 1927, stipulating the liability thereon, which agreement was executed in accordance with the provisions of section 606 of the Revenue Act of 1928, and signed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Secretary of the Treasury in March, 1929. The law provides that such agreements shall be final and conclusive, “except upon a, showing of fraud or malfeasance, or misrepresentation of a material fact.” The argument máde on behalf of plaintiff is to the effect that the amount of .gain and profit received or due plaintiff from her father’s estate was misrepresented to her by the trustees thereof, that by reason of this misrepresentation she overstated her income, and that consequently she is entitled to repudiate the agreement.

The statute does not expressly limit the misrepresentations upon which the agreement may be set aside to statements made by the agents of the government, but a reading of the context shows plainly that the statute was not intended to apply to misrepresentations made by other parties.

This construction of the law makes is unnecessary to consider the other defenses set up by the defendant. The plaintiff’s petition must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 F.2d 302, 75 Ct. Cl. 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyde-v-united-states-cc-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack