The COVID Project
The record
- Level
- Legal authority
- Authority
- United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (1976)
- Issued
- 1976-07-06 July 6, 1976
- In force
- July 6, 1976 (no end date recorded; counted as in force for 120 days)
- Character
- case
Operative words
An overpayment must appear before refund is authorized. Although the statute of limitations may have barred the assessment and collection of any additional sum, it does not obliterate the right of the United States to retain payments already received when they do not exceed the amount which might have been properly assessed and demanded. (Lewis at 283)... In a refund suit the taxpayer bears the burden of proving the amount he is entitled to recover. Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U. S. 281 (1932). It is not enough for him to demonstrate that the assessment of the tax for which refund is sought was erroneous in some respects. (Janis at 440)
Notes
The United States' own descriptions of the refund forum: 'in such a refund suit, the Notice would be reviewed under the same standards that govern judicial review of any other agency rule' (Br. for Appellees at 18); 'the Internal Revenue Code's specific procedures for de novo judicial review of the merits' (Doc. 44 at 22, quoting QinetiQ); 'any taxpayer that brings a refund suit can argue that the IRS incorrectly interpreted the provisions of the ERC' (Doc. 44 at 23); 'Whether Notice 2021-20 exists or not, the statute will control whether a refund is warranted' (Doc. 44 at 24).