Addressograph-Multigraph Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Claims
1Opinion of the Court
HOWELL, Judge.
In this case we are asked to decide whether an amendment made after the Statute of Limitations has run to-a pending claim for refund of taxes filed in time is of such a nature as to permit the taxpayer to recover an admitted overpayment of taxes.
At all times material hereto plaintiff was and still is a Delaware corporation with its principal office and place of business in Cleveland, Ohio.
On or about March 15, 1930, and March 14, 1931, plaintiff filed federal income tax returns for the calendar years 1929 and 1930, respectively. The return for 1929 showed a total income tax of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
- United States v. Garbutt Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- United States v. AndrewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Bemis Bro. Bag Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- United States v. Factors & Finance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Computervision Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Smale & Robinson, Inc. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1954
- Mobil Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2002
- St. Joseph Lead Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- New Oakmont Corporation v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1949
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.