Judge Dee Benson – Motion to Amend Judgment denied

BARRICK RESOURCES (USA), INC., and SUBSIDIARIES, Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

Case No. 2:03-CV-01006

United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93249

December 26, 2006 

Barrick Resources received a tax refund check in the amount of $215,463.  The IRS later determined that they shouldn’t have given Barrick any portion of that refund.

“The Internal Revenue Code permits the United States to recover tax refunds paid in error. See I.R.C. 7405(b). In order for the United States to recover an allegedly erroneous refund, it must show: (1) a refund made to the taxpayer; (2) the amount of the refund; (3)  the timely commencement of the § 7405(b) recovery action; and (4) no entitlement by the taxpayer to the refund that the United States seeks to recover.”

Judge Benson earlier ruled (on October 31, 2006) that the IRS met all four elements and was entitled to reimbursement of the enire refund.

After the judgment was entered, Barrick filed a Motion to Amend Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e).  In filing the Motion to Amend Judgment, Barrick “simply reiterated its [prior] arguments.” The Court clarified that it “is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing in a Rule 59(e) motion.”

Barrick’s Motion to Amend Judgment denied.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Civil, Judge Dee Benson, Tax law

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: