Without determining whether equitable recoupment will be applicable in other cases in this state, we hold that it is not appropriate in this case."); American Life Accident Ins. Co. of Kentucky, Inc. v. Revenue Cabinet, 173 S. W.3d 910, 915 (Ky. App. 2004) ("while it is arguable that Kentucky has implicitly recognized equitable recoupment . . . it has also been held that if equitable relief is not provided for by statute then it is unavailable" [citation omitted]), review denied, 2005 Ky. LEXIS 320 (October 12, 2005); May Dept. Stores Co. v. Pittsburgh, 31 Pa. Commw. 398, 406, 376 A.2d 309 (1977) (describing equitable recoupment as "a creature of the federal judiciary" but concluding same transaction requirement not met).

See Vivigen v. Minzer, 870 P.2d 1382 (N.M. 1994); Estate of Kasishke v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 541 P.2d 848 (Okla. 1975); Sprint Communications v. State Board of Equalization, 47 Cal. Rptr.2d 399 (1995); National Cash Register v. Joseph, 86 N.E.2d 561 (N.Y. 1949); Superior Air Products v. Director, 9 N.J. Tax 463 (1988); Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Smith, 473 N.E.2d 611 (1985); American Motors Corp. v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 219 N.W.2d 300 (1974); Fadner v, Commissioner of Revenue Services, 917 A.2d 540 (Conn. 2007); Allied Timber Co. v. Department of Revenue, 677 P.2d 33 (Or. 1984); American Life & Accident v. Commonwealth, 173 S.W.3d 910 (Ky. 2004). -------- The cases, and Mr. Franklin's law review article, point out that the issue here is not a simple one, of whether to adopt the doctrine or not. The courts that recognize the doctrine have had to wrestle with (1) the extent to which the tax collector also gets the benefit of it to the detriment of the taxpayer, and (2) if limited to "the same transaction," which most or all of them have held to be the case, how to define what that means.