Charles Leich and Company v. The United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “the factor of no tax liability” coupled with one other factor makes the remit tance a deposit
• holding that “the factors of ‘contest,’ coupled with the fact of no assessment, are sufficient to negate ‘payment.’ ”
• holding that a remittance was a deposit where taxpayer received a letter from the IRS proposing tax deficiencies and paid the full amount proposed, but also protested liability
• holding that remittance was a deposit where it was “clear that throughout the entire period taxpayer was contesting the proposed liability”; distinguishing eases where “taxpayers did not negate ‘payment’ by simultaneous contest”
• finding that because the government had made no assessment and taxpayer contested the proposed liability, a remittance was a deposit and not a payment
• “It seems clear that a remittance made by a taxpayer of an amount * * * given in response to an assessment of taxes by the Internal Revenue 4 Sec. 6603(a

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).