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.
SOUTHWESTERN OIL & GAS CO. v. UNITED STATES, 1929 — 34 F.2d 446 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
SOUTHWESTERN OIL & GAS CO. v. UNITED STATES
34 F.2d 446·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1929
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
SOUTHWESTERN OIL & GAS CO. v. UNITED STATES.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
September 5, 1929.
No. 3988.
James Walton, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
John D. Meyer, U. S., Atty., John A. Mc-Cann, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Pittsburgh, Pa., and C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, and Floyd F. Toomey and John H. Pigg, Sp. Attys., Bureau of Internal Revenue, all of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAYIS, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.]
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
In the court below the plaintiff sought to recover for taxes alleged to have been wrongfully collected. On stipulated facts the court entered judgment against the plaintiff. Hence this appeal.
The complicated facts and the statutes bearing thereon are set forth in the opinion of the court below [29 F.(2d) 404], and it suffices to say that the test of alleged errors narrows to this question: Shall this court read into section 281(e) of the 1924 Revenue Act (26 USCA § 1065, note), provisions which it does not contain, and interpret it to read as noted below?
“If the invested capital of a taxpayer.is decreased by the Commissioner, and such decrease is due to 'the fact that the taxpayer failed to take adequate deductions in previous years, with the result that there has been an overpayment of income, war profits, or excess profits taxes in any previous year or years, then the amount of any overpayment for such previous year or years, shall be credited or refunded, without the filing of a claim therefor, notwithstanding the period of limitation provided for in subdivision (b) has expired.”
We think the court below was right in refusing so to do. Its judgment is therefore affirmed.