Donald G. Ford, Transferee, Plaintiff-appellee, v. United States of America, Defendant-appellant, 402 F.2d 791 (6th Cir. 1968)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 402 F.2d 791 (6th Cir. 1968) November 13, 1968

Robert J. Campbell, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellant; Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks, William A. Friedlander, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on briefs; Ernest W. Rivers, U. S. Atty., Louisville, Ky., of counsel.

S. Russell Smith, Louisville, Ky., for appellee; Kirby A. Scott, Louisville, Ky., on brief; Smith & Smith, Louisville, Ky., of counsel.

Before WEICK, Chief Judge, COMBS, Circuit Judge, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.


In the taxpayer's suit for recovery of income taxes alleged to have been illegally assessed and collected, the Government did not rebut the evidence that bad debt recoveries were improperly retained in the company's income, but defended on the technical ground that there was a variance between the refund claim and the evidence and that the claim was not sufficiently specific to comply with the statute and the regulation. 26 U.S.C. 1964 ed., § 7422; 26 C.F.R., Sec. 1.11-1.

We agree with District Judge Gordon that there was no variance and that the refund claim was sufficiently specific to fairly advise the Commissioner of the nature of the taxpayer's claim. Kales v. United States, 115 F.2d 497 (6th Cir. 1940); Lucas v. Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co., 89 F.2d 945 (6th Cir. 1937); Belknap v. United States, 55 F. Supp. 90 (D.C.W.D. Ky. 1944).

The Commissioner raised no question about the form of the refund claim when it was filed with him and considered it on its merits. It is too late for him now to raise technical objections as to its form. 10 Merten's Law of Federal Income Taxation § 58.19, at page 51.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.