Abstract
This Article examines the development of recoupment by first comparing and contrasting other equitable remedies. Because discussions of related equitable remedies have filled tomes in themselves, this Article concentrates only on the more salient aspects of these remedies as they pertain to the development of recoupment in the federal tax context. Next, the established elements of recoupment will be discussed in depth, with particular emphasis on the views of Professor Andrews. The Article questions whether Professor Andrews's views represent the most effective analysis of the recoupment criteria in light of the judicial inconsistencies.
In discussing the ineffectiveness of recoupment as a modern remedy, this Article also addresses jurisdictional problems inherent in the remedy and contrasts statutory mitigation with recoupment. Finally, in an effort to achieve a fairer, more viable remedy, the Article proposes an expansion of the established elements and a shift in focus to the individual equities of each case.
Repository Citation
Camilla E. Watson,
Equitable Recoupment: Revisiting an Old and Inconsistent Remedy
(1996),
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_artchop/433
Fordham Law Review, Vol. 65, No. 2 (November 1996), pp. 691-788