Ness v. United States

Court of Claims

Ness v. United States

231 Ct. Cl. 957, 1982 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 426, 1982 WL 25818

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedSeptember 3, 1982

DocketNo. 654-81T

StatusPublished

This text of 231 Ct. Cl. 957 (Ness 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

Ness v. United States, 231 Ct. Cl. 957, 1982 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 426, 1982 WL 25818 (cc 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment arises under the mechanics of section 46(b) of the Internal Revenue Code relating to the carryback of excess investment tax credits. There does not appear to be any substantive issue for the court to decide at this point. Defendant’s response to the motion states that a concession has been approved on behalf of the Attorney General and that, as soon as a recomputation is completed, defendant will execute a stipulation for entry of judgment for the appropriate amounts of tax and interest.

Plaintiffs’ counsel was advised by a letter from defendant dated July 6, 1982, of concession of the tax issue raised in the pleadings. Defendant’s response expresses no objection to the court allowing the motion and remanding the case to the trial judge for a determination of the amount of recovery. It would seem therefore that on the pending tax issues the trial judge’s participation would probably be ministerial but useful in expediting the resolution of the case. We intimate no decision, however, on plaintiffs’ claim for attorney fees and costs, as to which no evidence has been presented. This issue too must be resolved by the trial judge.

it is therefore ordered that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment filed July 6, 1982, is allowed on the [958]*958refund issue and the plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The case is remanded to the trial judge for a determination of the amount of recovery. Rule 131(c)(2).

On October 28, 1982, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, judgment for plaintiffs was entered for $30,511 plus statutory interest.

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

Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment arises under the mechanics of section 46(b) of the Internal Revenue Code relating to the carryback of excess investment tax credits. There does not appear to be any substantive issue for the court to decide at this point. Defendant’s response to the motion states that a concession has been approved on behalf of the Attorney General and that, as soon as a recomputation is completed, defendant will execute a stipulation for entry of judgment for the appropriate amounts of tax and interest.

Plaintiffs’ counsel was advised by a letter from defendant dated July 6, 1982, of concession of the tax issue raised in the pleadings. Defendant’s response expresses no objection to the court allowing the motion and remanding the case to the trial judge for a determination of the amount of recovery. It would seem therefore that on the pending tax issues the trial judge’s participation would probably be ministerial but useful in expediting the resolution of the case. We intimate no decision, however, on plaintiffs’ claim for attorney fees and costs, as to which no evidence has been presented. This issue too must be resolved by the trial judge.

it is therefore ordered that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment filed July 6, 1982, is allowed on the [958]*958refund issue and the plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The case is remanded to the trial judge for a determination of the amount of recovery. Rule 131(c)(2).

On October 28, 1982, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, judgment for plaintiffs was entered for $30,511 plus statutory interest.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 Ct. Cl. 957, 1982 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 426, 1982 WL 25818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ness-v-united-states-cc-1982.