Hoyt v. United States

2 Citing cases

  1. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co. v. United States, (1935)

    10 F. Supp. 591 (Fed. Cl. 1935)   Cited 6 times
    In Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company v. United States, 10 F. Supp. 591, 81 Ct.Cl. 289, cert. denied, 300 U.S. 664, 57 S.Ct. 507, 81 L.Ed. 872, we held that the Commissioner acted illegally and without authority when he applied an overpayment of tax by a corporate lessee as a credit against a tax due from the lessor corporation, notwithstanding a contractual obligation of lessee corporation to pay taxes assessed against the lessor, since lessee was not "the taxpayer" within the meaning of the statute permitting credit of an overpayment against a deficiency.

    What was done was for the mutual benefit of the government and the plaintiff company, and was a short-cut method of adjusting the tax accounts of the two companies. Hoyt et al. v. United States, 39 F.2d 739, 69 Ct. Cl. 604. This obviated resort to the more roundabout method of the government making a formal and technical refund of the overpayment to Ford Motor Company (Delaware) and that company in turn returning to the government the same amount in payment of the deficiency assessment against Ford Motor Company (Michigan). This was precisely the result attained by the short method used, and, while the transaction was characterized as a credit on the records of both the collector and the Commissioner, it was not such within the meaning of the statute, but was in substance a refund of the overpayment, as much so as if the usual procedure had been followed and a refund check had been issued for the amount."

  2. Ford Motor Co. v. United States, (1935)

    9 F. Supp. 590 (Fed. Cl. 1935)   Cited 9 times

    What was done was for the mutual benefit of the government and the plaintiff company, and was a short-cut method of adjusting the tax accounts of the two companies. Hoyt et al. v. United States, 39 F.2d 739, 69 Ct. Cl. 604. This obviated resort to the more roundabout method of the government making a formal and technical refund of the overpayment to Ford Motor Company (Delaware) and that company in turn returning to the government the same amount in payment of the deficiency assessment against Ford Motor Company (Michigan). This was precisely the result attained by the short method used, and, while the transaction was characterized as a credit on the records of both the collector and the Commissioner, it was not such within the meaning of the statute, but was in substance a refund of the overpayment, as much so as if the usual procedure had been followed and a refund check had been issued for the amount. It is further contended that neither a refund nor credit was ever allowed in this case, as no reference to the overpayment appeared in the schedule of refunds and credits when approved by the Commissioner.