Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that, to allow a non-Article III tribunal \to give effect to an equitable defense which of necessity is based upon a determination foreign to the [tribunal's] jurisdiction would be contrary to the expressed will of Congress\
• noting the Board's assumption of jurisdiction, and the legislative revocation thereof, to determine an overpayment for a nondeficiency year in unique circumstances where the overpayment was netted against the deficiency
• noting the Board’s assumption of jurisdiction, and the legislative revocation thereof, to determine an overpayment for a nondeficiency year in unique circumstances where the overpayment was netted against the deficiency
• noting the Board’s assumption of jurisdiction, and the legislative revocation thereof, to determine an overpayment for a nondeficiency year in unique circumstances where the overpayment was netted against the deficiency
• Supreme Court determined that equitable principles could not be applied to expand our jurisdiction where Congress had placed specific statutory limitations thereon
• Supreme Court determined that equitable principles could not be applied to expand our jurisdiction where Congress had placed specific statutory limitations thereon

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).