Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
NATIONAL EQUIPMENT CO. v. UNITED STATES, 1930 — 39 F.2d 757 · caselaw · US
Tax
NATIONAL EQUIPMENT CO. v. UNITED STATES
39 F.2d 757·United States Court of Claims·1930
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
NATIONAL EQUIPMENT CO. v. UNITED STATES.
No. J-83.
Court of Claims.
April 7, 1930.
Charles H, Beckwith, of Springfield,. Mass., and Miller & Chevalier, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Charles R. Pollard, of Washington, D.. C., and Herman J. Galloway, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Ralph E. Smith, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for the United States.
Before BOOTH, Chief Justice, and GRAHAM, GREEN, LITTLETON, and WILLIAMS, Judges.
[MAJORITY — LITTLETON, Judge.]
LITTLETON, Judge.
The question involved in this ease is the same as that decided by the court in Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills, Inc., v. United States (Ct. Cl.) 37 F.(2d) 965, decided February 10, 1930.
The plaintiff contends that it is entitled to recover $20,638.87 as interest on the over-payments set forth in the findings of fact from the dates on which the overpayments were made to the date of the assessment of the additional tax for 1917, 1918, and 1919 against which the overpayments were applied as credits.
The question is governed by the opinion of the court in Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills, Inc., v. United States, supra, and, for the reasons stated in that ease, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover. The petition must therefore be dismissed, and it is so ordered.
BOOTH, Chief Justice, and WILLIAMS,, and GREEN, Judges, concur.
GRAHAM, Judge, concurs in view of the previous decisions of the court.