William R. Tinnerman v. United States

In Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (1960), this Court considered the statutory grant of original jurisdiction of, inter alia, “[a]ny civil action against the United States for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected,” 28 U.S.C. §1346(a)(1), and “conclude[d] that the language of [Section] 1346(a)(1) can be more readily construed to require payment of the full tax before suit than to permit suit for recovery of a part payment.” Id. at 150–51. Thus, for tax refund suits, the Flora rule requires that, before a district court has jurisdiction to entertain a taxpayer’s suit, the taxpayer pay the full amount of the tax that the federal government contends is due. The Flora rule has been the subject of substantial criticism for, inter alia, being wrong as a matter of statutory interpretation, and it concerns “a question which is of considerable importance in the administration of the tax laws.” Id. at 147. And while recent decisions of this Court have emphasized that statutes must be construed in strict accordance with the enacted language, the Flora court acknowledged that its holding hinged on an interpretation in which “the statutory language is not absolutely controlling[.]” Id. at 151. The questions presented are: 1. Under the language of 28 U.S.C. §1346(a)(1), is full payment of tax alleged to be owed for an entire taxable period a jurisdictional prerequisite for a district court to adjudicate a