Ebert v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
66 Fed. Cl. 287 (2005)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Remedios Ebert (plaintiff) was the widow of a member of the United States military. Between 1999 and approximately the middle of 2001, Ebert received compensation under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). Ebert paid approximately $4,887 in federal income tax on her SBP payments. In July 2001, the Department of Veterans Affairs notified Ebert that she was entitled to Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) retroactive to February 1, 1999. DIC payments were not subject to federal income tax. In February 2002, Ebert sent a letter to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) asking for a refund of the taxes she paid on her SBP compensation due to her retroactive qualification for nontaxable DIC payments. Ebert supported her request with IRS form 1042S, which showed the tax that was withheld from the SBP payments. In October 2003, Ebert sent a second letter to the IRS in which she included a copy of her 2001 federal tax return showing the tax withheld from the SBP payments in 2001. In February 2004, Ebert filed a pro se complaint against the United States (defendant) seeking a refund of the $4,887 in taxes that she paid on the SBP payments based on the retroactive conversion of her taxable SBP payments to nontaxable DIC payments. The United States moved for summary judgment. Ebert filed a submission that the court treated as a cross motion for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Merow, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.