Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Rock Island, Arkansas & Louisiana Railroad v. United States

254 U.S. 141

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1920-11-22
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • recognizing that upon waiving immunity, United States has right to insist upon literal compliance with statutory provisions governing jurisdiction
  • holding failure to comply with "purely formal conditions" fatal to petitioner's claim for tax refund
  • “[A] pro se plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing an action under the FTCA.”
  • "Men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government"

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Rock Island, Arkansas & Louisiana Railroad v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
443 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Tax Law — Recovery of Illegal Taxes — Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies The right to sue for recovery of an internal revenue tax alleged to have been illegally assessed is conditioned upon a prior appeal to and decision by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; this requirement means an appeal, made after payment, seeking a refund of the tax, and is not satisfied by an application for abatement of the tax made before it was paid. 254 U.S. at 142 (construing Rev. Stat. §§ 3220, 3226, 3228)
  2. Tax Law — Statutory Construction — Refund Claims The statutory authorization for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to remit, refund, and pay back illegally assessed taxes "on appeal to him made" refers to an appeal for the relief there sought — that is, a refund where refunding is what the taxpayer requests — and the suit prerequisite of § 3226 must likewise be read to require an appeal taken after payment, particularly in light of the provision requiring such claims to be presented within two years after the cause of action accrued. 254 U.S. at 143
  3. Tax Law — Conditions on Consent to Be Sued When the Government attaches conditions, even purely formal ones, to its consent to be sued, those conditions must be complied with; the taxpayer's failure to pursue a post-payment refund claim is not excused on the theory that an earlier pre-payment application for abatement raising substantially the same objection made a second appeal an idle act. 254 U.S. at 145
ROCK ISLAND c. R.R.v. UNITED STATES,254 U.S. 141(1920)
41 S.Ct. 55
ROCK ISLAND, ARKANSAS LOUISIANA RAILROAD COMPANYv. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
No. 82.
Submitted November 8, 1920.
Decided November 22, 1920.
The right to sue for the recovery of an internal revenue tax illegally assessed is conditioned upon prior appeal to and decision by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, which means an appeal, after payment, for a refund, and is not satisfied by an appeal or application for abatement of the tax before it was paid. Rev. Stats., §§ 3226 (as amended), 3220, 3228, construed. P. 142. 54 Ct. Clms. 22, affirmed.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Thomas P. LittlepageandMr. Sidney F. Taliaferrofor appellant.The Solicitor Generalfor the United States.Mr. W. MarvinSmithwas also on the brief.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a claim for a sum paid as an internal revenue tax under the Act of August 5, 1909, c. 6, § 38,36 Stat. 11, 112. It is alleged that the claimant was not engaged in or doing business in the year for which the tax was collected and that therefore it was not due. The Court of Claims dismissed the petition on the ground that the claimant had not complied with the conditions imposed by statute and the claimant appealed to this Court.

The facts are simple. After the tax was assessed a claim for an abatement was sent to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in July, 1913. On December 18 of thePage 142same year the Commissioner rejected the application, whereupon on December 26 the claimant paid the tax with interest and a penalty. So far as appears there was no protest at the time of payment and it is found that after it nothing was done to secure repayment of the tax. By Rev. Stats., § 3226, amended by Act of February 27, 1877, c. 69, § 1,19 Stat. 248, no suit shall be maintained in any Court for the recovery of any tax alleged to have been illegally assessed "until appeal shall have been duly made to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, according to the provisions of law in that regard, and the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury established in pursuance thereof, and a decision of the Commissioner has been had therein:Provided," etc. Regulations of the Secretary established a procedure and a form to be used in applications for abatement of taxes and distinct ones for claims for refunding them. The claimant took the first step but not the last.

By Rev. Stats., § 3220, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is authorized "on appeal to him made, to remit, refund, and pay back" taxes illegally assessed. It is urged that the "appeal" to him to remit made a second appeal to him to refund an idle act and satisfied the requirement of § 3226. Decisions to that effect in suits against a collector are cited, the latest beingLoomisv.Wattles, 266 F. 876. — But the words "on appeal to him made" mean, of course, on appeal in respect of the relief sought on appeal — to refund if refunding is what he is asked to do. The words of § 3226 also must be taken to mean an appeal after payment, especially in view of § 3228 requiring claims of this sort to be presented to the Commissioner within two years after the cause of action accrued. So that the question is of reading an implied exception into the rule as expressed, when substantially the same objection to the assessment has been urged at an earlier stage.Page 143

Men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government. If it attaches even purely formal conditions to its consent to be sued those conditions must be complied with.Lexnon proecipit inutilia(Co. Lit. 127b) expresses rather an ideal than an accomplished fact. But in this case we cannot pronounce the second appeal a mere form. On appeal a judge sometimes concurs in a reversal of his decision below. It is possible as suggested by the Court of Claims that the second appeal may be heard by a different person. At all events the words are there in the statute and the regulations, and the Court is of opinion that they mark the conditions of the claimant's right. SeeKings County Savings Institutionv.Blair,116 U.S. 200. It is unnecessary to consider other objections that the claimant would have to meet before it could recover upon this claim.Judgment affirmed.