In the case of United States v. Darusmont et ux., 1980, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government's right to collect taxes on a refund that had been previously issued and then later determined as erroneous. The respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Darusmont, received an income tax refund from their 1972 return which was subsequently identified by Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as incorrect due to miscalculations in foreign tax credits claimed by them. The IRS sought repayment but was denied by both District Court and Ninth Circuit appeals court who held that such collection would violate Section 1341(a)(5) of Title 31 U.S.C., which prohibits recovery unless it is "authorized under law." However, upon reaching Supreme Court level review, it was decided that this section did not apply because there were no restrictions placed on recovering erroneously made payments within Internal Revenue Code itself; thus allowing for lawful recoupment.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Darusmont, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a tax deficiency assessment against the taxpayers. He argued that this was not in line with Congress' intent when they enacted Section 1341 of Internal Revenue Code, which allows taxpayers to claim a deduction or credit if they repay income previously reported because it appeared that they had an unrestricted right to such income but later found out otherwise. According to Brennan, Congress intended for this provision to apply broadly and provide relief in all situations where it is applicable - including cases like Darusmont’s where there has been no change in facts but rather a change in understanding of law due to court rulings after taxes were filed and paid. The majority's narrow interpretation would limit its application only when there is factual mistake about entitlements at time of receipt – contrary what he believes was Congressional intent.