154 Opinion of the Court. which the proposed classification was based. As a matter of fact, he was furnished with a written copy for his own keeping and use of everything that was adverse to him in his record, and he was given in the court of inquiry a full opportunity to consult a copy of his entire record. We do not think that the difference between what was required by the statute and what was actually afforded him in the matter was of sufficient substance to invalidate the proceedings. The chief complaint of plaintiff, when the briefs in his behalf are analyzed, is that he was prevented by the court from introducing additional evidence of cumulative character to disprove charges which the court of inquiry, upon the statement in the plaintiff's own evidence that he had never been presented with the charges and never been called upon to answer them, completely ignored. The court did so, as explained by the president of the court of inquiry, in accordance with instructions received by the court to disregard any charges against any officer who had not been brought to trial on them or to whom they had not been read. The recommendation of the court of inquiry was that the plaintiff be retained in class A. This was doubtless the reason why the court of inquiry did not think it necessary to call additional witnesses, especially in reference to a subject matter that could not affect the standing of the officer. In the absence of any other circumstances, and in the face of the presumption of regularity that must obtain in proceedings of this sort, we can not assume that the final board of classification considered as a basis for putting the plaintiff in class B, charges which had never been presented to him, charges which he denied, and charges which the court of inquiry ignored. It is claimed that the plaintiff was injured by the failure of the recorder of the court to include in the record of the court of inquiry the colloquy between the plaintiff and his 100569°-26- -11 counsel, on the one hand, and the court of inquiry on the other, with reference to discontinuing the hearings. We do not think that, if the colloquy had been put in the record, it would have made any substantial difference in its effect. We have no means of knowing exactly what the record of the court of inquiry as forwarded to the board of final classification contained except from the findings of the Court of Claims, which shows that it contained all that the plaintiff put in in the way of records and documents and his evidence. In view of this we can not assume that the complaint by the plaintiff that the record was defective was well founded. The Court of Claims found that the plaintiff was not prevented from putting in the additional evidence on the charges which were subsequently ignored. It is argued to us that the attitude of the court was in effect and as a matter of military law a military order preventing the submission of further evidence and making it a military offence for the plaintiff to have insisted on introducing his witnesses. Were the matter important, we should have difficulty in yielding to such a view. The Court of Claims finds in effect that the action of plaintiff in not producing further evidence was voluntary acquiescence by him in the suggestion of the court. He had counsel who presumably knew his rights under the statute, and if such evidence was deemed material and important, we must assume that the counsel would have asserted his right and insisted on the production of the evidence. Much of the briefs of counsel for the plaintiff in error is made up of statements based on, and quotations from, the evidence before the Court of Claims. We can not consider this. We are limited to the findings of the Court of Claims. United States v. Smith, 94 U. S. 214; Stone v. United States, 164 U. S. 380; Crocker v. United States, 240 U. S. 74, 78; Brothers v. United States, 250 U. S. 88, 93. There is nothing in the record before us which would justify us in holding the proceedings invalid. The judgment is Affirmed. GIRARD TRUST COMPANY, GEORGE STEVENSON, WILLIAM R. VERNER ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 137. Argued January 14, 15, 1926.-Decided March 1, 1926. 1. Where interest on tax refunds is allowed by statute, a suit for the interest after refund of a tax is maintainable in the Court of Claims. Stewart v. Barnes, 153 U. S. 456, distinguished. P. 168. 2. Under 1324 (a) of the Revenue Act of November 23, 1921, which provides that, upon the allowance of a claim for the refund of internal revenue taxes paid, interest shall be allowed and paid upon the total amount of such refund "to the date of such allowance," the date to which the interest runs is neither the date of actual repayment nor the date on which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue first decides that there has been an overassessment and refers the matter to the Collector for examination and report of the amounts to be refunded, but the date on which the Commissioner approves the amount thus ascertained, for payment. P. 169.. 3. The above section dates the interest (a) from the time when the tax was paid, if it was paid "under a specific protest setting forth in detail the basis of and reasons for such protest," but (b) from six months after the date of filing claim for refund, if there was no protest or payment pursuant to additional assessment. Held, that, in order to date the interest from time of payment of tax, the protest under which it was paid must set forth a specific and valid reason for a refund. P. 171. 4. Where a tax payment was less than the amount illegally assessed, due to deduction of the discount allowed on anticipatory payments by § 1009 of the Revenue Act of October 3, 1917, the amount refundable, with interest, was the amount actually paid, not including the discount. P. 173. 59 Ct. Cls. 727, reversed. Opinion of the Court. 270 U.S. APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Claims allowing, in part, claims for recovery of interest on the amounts of refunded tax payments. Mr. James Craig Peacock, with whom Mr. John W. Townsend was on the brief, for appellants. Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, with whom Solicitor General Mitchell and Mr. Randolph S. Collins, Attorney in the Department of Justice, were on the brief, for the United States. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims under § 242 of the Judicial Code. The judgment was entered May 19, 1924, and the appeal was allowed July 3, 1924. The judgment dismissed the petition of the plaintiffs upon findings of fact. The Girard Trust Company and the other appellants are trustees of the estate of Alfred F. Moore, deceased. Their claims are for interest not paid on refunds of taxes paid them. The proposed income tax upon the Moore estate for 1920, as originally returned early in 1921, was $196,202.61. On March 15, 1921, and on June 15, 1921, quarterly payments of the tax, which amounted to $49,050.66 each, were paid to the collector. On August 2, 1921, the trustees for the estate filed a claim for the refund of the two installments aggregating $98,101.32, already paid, and claim for abatement of the two remaining quarterly installments not yet paid, aggregating the same amount. The claim for abatement was allowed in its entirety, and the claim for the refund in large part. The action of the Department began December 9, 1922, in a schedule form, signed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, including an item of overassessments, and marked, "Approved by the Commissioner of Internal 163 Opinion of the Court. Revenue, for transmission to the proper accounting officers for credit and refund." This was transmitted to the Collector of Internal Revenue for the First District of Pennsylvania to examine the account of the taxpayer, to report back the amount to be refunded and the amount to be credited on taxes due and unpaid. The collector made the report. The Assistant Commissioner of Internal Revenue confirmed the report and the Commissioner directed the refund January 16, 1923. On February 20, 1923, the trustees received by mail a certificate of overassessment dated February 10, 1923, stating that since $196,202.61 was assessed, whereas $13,663.89 was the correct tax, there had been an overassessment of $182,583.72, and that the amount of this overassessment had been applied as follows: Amount abated.... Amount refunded. With this certificate was a check for $98, 101.29 84, 416. 02 $84,416.02, the amount of the refund without interest. Since filing the petition in this case the trustees received, under date of October 5, 1923, a check for $4,318.97, interest on the refund and the credit of $21.41, from six months after the filing of the claim for refund to December 9, 1922. Moore's estate made return to the Collector of Internal Revenue for excess profits tax for the year 1917 of $108,140.15, and on March 21, 1918, paid to the Collector of Internal Revenue $107,372.36, the amount of the tax less the credit of $767.79 allowed for payment in advance of the time fixed by law, June 15, 1918. Ascertaining that the trustees of a trust estate were not subject to excess profits tax, on August 2, 1921, they filed a claim for refund of the entire tax of $108,140.15. This claim was approved by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for $107,372.36, on December 9, 1922, under the prescribed schedule form in which this item was marked |