Kirkendall v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• finding an implied-in-fact contract where plaintiffs were wrong fully deprived of their inheritance because some of it was used incorrectly to pay the estate’s federal taxes
• plaintiff has a right to a refund of its money wrongfully taken and applied to a third party’s taxes
• implied-in-fact contract between the government and an individual whose money the government has erroneously received is within the court’s jurisdiction
• “[A] refund claim is an appropriate action under the revenue statutes to recover money paid as taxes when made by the party who paid the tax.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).