Bull, Executor, v. United States
295 U.S. 247 (1935)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of equitable recoupment, a taxpayer's time-barred claim for a tax refund can be used as a defense to offset a timely tax deficiency assessed by the government, provided that both claims arise from the same single transaction or taxable event.
Facts:
- Archibald H. Bull was a partner in a ship-brokerage firm that required no capital investment.
- The partnership agreement provided that upon a partner's death, the deceased's estate would continue to receive his share of the profits for one year.
- Bull died on February 13, 1920.
- His estate did not exercise its option to withdraw from the partnership and, for the remainder of 1920, received $212,718.79 in profits earned by the firm after Bull's death.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue first determined these post-death profits were part of the estate's corpus and levied an estate tax on them, which the estate paid.
- Several years later, the Commissioner reversed course and determined the same $212,718.79 was income to the estate and levied an income tax on it.
Procedural Posture:
- The executor of Bull's estate paid an estate tax on post-death partnership profits in 1921.
- In 1925, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed a deficiency in income tax on the same profits.
- The executor appealed the income tax deficiency to the Board of Tax Appeals, which sustained the Commissioner's assessment.
- The executor paid the income tax deficiency in 1928 and filed a claim for a refund, which the Commissioner rejected.
- The executor then sued the United States in the Court of Claims, seeking in the alternative a refund of the income tax or a credit for the overpaid estate tax.
- The Court of Claims ruled for the United States, holding that the profits were properly taxed as income and that any claim for an estate tax refund was barred by the statute of limitations.
- The executor (petitioner) was granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the equitable principle of recoupment allow a taxpayer to credit a time-barred overpayment of estate tax against a timely-assessed income tax deficiency, when both taxes were levied on the same sum of money from a single transaction?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Roberts
Yes. The equitable principle of recoupment allows a taxpayer to credit a time-barred overpayment against a timely deficiency when both arise from the same transaction. The court first determined that the profits earned after Bull's death were properly classified as income to the estate, not as corpus subject to estate tax. Therefore, the initial collection of the estate tax on that sum was erroneous. While the statute of limitations barred the estate from filing a direct suit for a refund of the overpaid estate tax, the doctrine of recoupment provides a remedy. Recoupment is an equitable defense that arises from the same transaction upon which the plaintiff's (the government's) action is grounded. Such a defense is never barred by the statute of limitations so long as the main action itself is timely. Because the government's claim for income tax and the estate's claim for an estate tax refund concerned the identical sum of money, it would be against 'morality and conscience' to permit the government to retain the overpayment simply because of a procedural time bar. The substance of the matter is that the government was trying to collect a debt, and the estate had a valid cross-demand arising from that same transaction which it could use as a defense, just as it could have in a traditional lawsuit.
Analysis:
This case establishes the doctrine of equitable recoupment in federal tax law, creating a significant, fairness-based exception to the strict enforcement of statutes of limitations. The decision prevents the government from taking inconsistent positions regarding the same taxable item to the detriment of the taxpayer. It ensures that substance prevails over procedural technicalities, allowing a single transaction to be treated consistently for tax purposes. The precedent from Bull v. United States remains a vital defense for taxpayers when the government asserts a deficiency based on a theory that is inconsistent with a prior, now time-barred, tax payment on the same event.
