Krug v. United States

Court of Claims

Krug v. United States

18 F. Supp. 242, 84 Ct. Cl. 502

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedMarch 1, 1937

DocketNo. 42900

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 F. Supp. 242 (Krug 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

Krug v. United States, 18 F. Supp. 242, 84 Ct. Cl. 502 (cc 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

WHALEY, Judge.

The mere reading of the facts in this case shows beyond even a reasonable doubt that the position of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in denying a refund to the plaintiff cannot be maintained in any court of law or equity. The arbitrary refusal to make a refund to one spouse merely because collection cannot be made of a deficiency from the other spouse is unlawful and inequitable. The -recitation of the facts or the citation of authorities we feel is superfluous. A quotation from the case of United States ex rel. Girard Trust Co. v. Helvering, 66 App.D.C. 64, 85 F.(2d) 230, 232, is appropriate here: “When the United States is properly a party in litigation in its own courts, it occupies no different or better position than the humblest citizen. Overreaching on its part should be no more condoned than if practiced by an individual. We have said as much before.”

The plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount sued for with interest according to law. It is so ordered.

BOOTH, Chief Justice, and WILLIAMS and GREEN, Judges, concur. LITTLETON, Judge, dissents.

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

WHALEY, Judge.

The mere reading of the facts in this case shows beyond even a reasonable doubt that the position of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in denying a refund to the plaintiff cannot be maintained in any court of law or equity. The arbitrary refusal to make a refund to one spouse merely because collection cannot be made of a deficiency from the other spouse is unlawful and inequitable. The -recitation of the facts or the citation of authorities we feel is superfluous. A quotation from the case of United States ex rel. Girard Trust Co. v. Helvering, 66 App.D.C. 64, 85 F.(2d) 230, 232, is appropriate here: “When the United States is properly a party in litigation in its own courts, it occupies no different or better position than the humblest citizen. Overreaching on its part should be no more condoned than if practiced by an individual. We have said as much before.”

The plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount sued for with interest according to law. It is so ordered.

BOOTH, Chief Justice, and WILLIAMS and GREEN, Judges, concur. LITTLETON, Judge, dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 F. Supp. 242, 84 Ct. Cl. 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krug-v-united-states-cc-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack