United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Patricia A. Millett (on behalf of the Respondents)
William M. Jay (on behalf of the Petitioner)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
07-308
Petitioner: 
United States
Respondent: 
Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Company, et al.
Decided By: 
Roberts Court (2006-)
Opinion: 
553 U.S. ___ (2008)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining , 553 U.S. ___ (2008)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_308)
Facts of the Case: 

In 2000, the IRS announced it was admitting the unconstitutionality of a 1978 coal export tax. In response, Clintwood Elkhorn Mining brought suit to recover funds paid, plus interest, under the unconstitutional tax scheme between the years 1994 and 1999. Clintwood sought recovery under the Export Clause of the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C Section 1491, which applies a six-year statute of limitations to claims and makes no mention of interest payments. The government argued that such claims must be brought under the Tax Code, which allows interest but applies a three-year statute of limitations.

Both the Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit allowed the Tucker Act claims, but the circuit court overruled the federal claims court's decision denying interest payments. In urging the Court to review both conclusions, the government contended that the Federal Circuit's ruling was at odds with other circuit decisions prohibiting Tucker Act claims under similar circumstances.

Question: 

Whether the claims of taxpayers seeking refunds for unconstitutionally levied taxes under the Export Clause of the Tucker Act, which applies a six-year statute of limitations, are preempted by the United States Tax Code's three-year statute of limitations for such claims?

Conclusion: 

In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., the Court refused to pay Clintwood refunds for the unconstitutionally levied taxes. The Court stated that the remedy for taxes imposed in violation of the Export Clause is the same as for any other unlawful tax: filing a timely administrative refund claim. Until taxpayers exhaust this avenue, they are prohibited from bringing a direct suit against the government.

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

Sort by Ideology

Wrote the majority opinion
Roberts
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Voted with the majority
Alito

Full Opinion by Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.