Flora v. United States
United States Supreme Court
362 U.S. 145, 80 S. Ct. 630, 4 L. Ed. 2d 623 (1960)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
Mr. Flora (plaintiff) suffered economic losses. On his tax return, Flora claimed the losses as ordinary losses that offset ordinary income. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determined that the losses should be treated as capital losses, which offset capital gains, and assessed a deficiency of approximately $29,000. Flora paid approximately $5,000 of the assessed deficiency and filed a claim with the IRS for the $5,000 to be refunded. The IRS denied the claim, and Flora sued the government (defendant) for a refund in district court. The government moved to dismiss the case, claiming that the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear a suit for a refund in which the taxpayer—here, Flora—had not paid the disputed tax assessment in full. The district court declined to grant the motion initially but determined that the government was correct on the merits as to the characterization of the losses. On appeal, the court of appeals held that the government was correct as to the jurisdictional issue and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it. Flora appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split as to the jurisdictional issue.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Warren, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 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.