Legal Opinion
Rothensies v. Electric Storage Battery Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided December 16, 1946No. 48PublishedCited by 314 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Jackson
This case represents an effort, thus far successful, to obtain advantage by way of recoupment of a claim for tax refund long since barred by the statute of limitations. The facts of this singular situation are not in dispute. From April 1919 to April 1926 the Electric Storage Battery Company paid excise taxes on the sale of storage batteries in the belief, shared by the Government, that such sales were subject to tax. In July of 1926 the company asserted otherwise and filed a refund claim. It asked refund only of that part of the taxes which it had paid between 1922 and 1926. Refund of the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Bull v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Chase Securities Corp. v. DonaldsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Security Flour Mills Co. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Stone v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by314 opinions
- United States v. DalmSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Beach v. Ocwen Federal BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Minehan v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
- Matthew M. Devich and Irma M. Devich v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1994
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Citizens Bank & Trust Company of Park Ridge, IllinoisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1979
309 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.