Johnson v. United States

LITTLETON, Judge.

Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial on the ground that the court erred in holding that he could not recover, for the reason that he did not include in his claim for refund the facts or a elaim for a deduction from his distributive share of the net income of the partnership his pro rata share of the excess profits tax paid by the partnership for 1917.

It is not claimed that this matter was brought to the attention of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the claim of June 12, 1924, but it is insisted that the facts necessary to enable the Commissioner to have made this…