Walter

Court of Claims

Walter

158 Ct. Cl. 701, 1962 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 196, 1962 WL 1599

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJuly 2, 1962

DocketNo. 160-61

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 158 Ct. Cl. 701 (Walter) 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

Walter, 158 Ct. Cl. 701, 1962 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 196, 1962 WL 1599 (cc 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Income tax; claim for refund; limitation of actions.— Plaintiffs sued to recover income taxes claimed to have been overpaid for the years 1951 and 1952 on royalty income on the ground that by virtue of the Act of June 29, 1956, 70 Stat. 404, plaintiff was given the right to treat the income from royalties as capital gains rather than as ordinary income for income tax purposes. Defendant contended that, assuming the 1956 Act created a new cause of action, the claim for refund was not timely because it was filed more than two years after the effective date of the act, i.e., the date of constructive payment of the tax. Verckler v. United States, 145 Ct. Cl. 252; Eastman Kodak Co. v. United States, 155 Ct. Cl. 256. On July 2, 1962, the court, upon consideration of defendant’s motion to dismiss the petition, together with the opposition thereto and oral argument of counsel, and on the basis of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Smith v. United States, 304 F. 2d 267; Lorenz v. United States, 155 Ct. Cl. 751, and Zacks v. United States, 150 Ct. Cl. 814, dismissed the petition.

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

Income tax; claim for refund; limitation of actions.— Plaintiffs sued to recover income taxes claimed to have been overpaid for the years 1951 and 1952 on royalty income on the ground that by virtue of the Act of June 29, 1956, 70 Stat. 404, plaintiff was given the right to treat the income from royalties as capital gains rather than as ordinary income for income tax purposes. Defendant contended that, assuming the 1956 Act created a new cause of action, the claim for refund was not timely because it was filed more than two years after the effective date of the act, i.e., the date of constructive payment of the tax. Verckler v. United States, 145 Ct. Cl. 252; Eastman Kodak Co. v. United States, 155 Ct. Cl. 256. On July 2, 1962, the court, upon consideration of defendant’s motion to dismiss the petition, together with the opposition thereto and oral argument of counsel, and on the basis of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Smith v. United States, 304 F. 2d 267; Lorenz v. United States, 155 Ct. Cl. 751, and Zacks v. United States, 150 Ct. Cl. 814, dismissed the petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 Ct. Cl. 701, 1962 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 196, 1962 WL 1599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walter-cc-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack