Jump to content

Flora v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legalskeptic (talk | contribs) at 15:39, 3 September 2018 (infobox tweak). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63 (1958)
Argued May 20, 1958
Decided June 16, 1958
Full case nameFlora v. United States
Citations357 U.S. 63 (more)
78 S. Ct. 1079; 2 L. Ed. 2d 1165; 1958 U.S. LEXIS 1806
Case history
PriorCert. to the 10th Circuit, 246 F.2d 929 (10th Cir. 1957)
SubsequentAffirmed on rehearing, 362 U.S. 145 (1960)
Holding
A taxpayer must pay the full amount of an income tax deficiency assessed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue before he may challenge its correctness by a suit in a federal district court for refund under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1).
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas · Harold H. Burton
Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr. · Charles E. Whittaker
Case opinion
MajorityWarren, joined by unanimous

Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63 (1958), affirmed on rehearing, 362 U.S. 145 (1960), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a taxpayer generally must pay the full amount of an income tax deficiency assessed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue before he may challenge its correctness by a suit in a federal district court for refund under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1).[1] The Supreme Court agreed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, stating that the full payment rule requires the entire amount of an asserted deficiency to be paid before a refund suit may be maintained.

Importance

If the taxpayer chooses to pay less than the deficiency asserted, the taxpayer's only remedies are (A) a deficiency proceeding in the Tax Court[2] or, (B) in a bankruptcy case, a determination under section 505(a) of the US Bankruptcy Code.[3] That rule can be a problem for a taxpayer who lets the 90-day period (following the issuance of a statutory notice of deficiency, during which he may file a Tax Court petition) expire and then cannot fully pay because of insufficient assets.

See also

References