Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Harnischfeger Corp. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided December 7, 1936No. 42099Published

1ConcurrenceGreen, Judge

If the Commissioner had adhered to his original determination with reference to the payment by plaintiff and the applica-. tion of the overassessments, he would have been on safe ground. But, realizing that a large amount of money would eventually have to be returned, he refunded the amount of the overassessments without interest, having previously and continuously given the plaintiff clearly to understand that interest would not be allowed as demanded. It is urged by plaintiff that the law expressly required the payment of interest on refunds, but I do not think this prevented the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Standard Oil Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1934
  2. Standard Oil Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1934
  3. Eastman Kodak Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1936
  4. York Safe & Lock Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API