## Facts

- Congress enacted the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) in 1986 to fund harbor-related programs by imposing a charge tied to use of certain U.S. ports.
- Applying the HMT to exports was held unconstitutional under the Export Clause, requiring refunds of export-related HMT payments.
- International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) received refunds of HMT it had paid on exports and sought statutory interest on those refunds.
- IBM relied on 28 U.S.C. § 2411, which authorizes interest on judgments for overpayments of an “internal-revenue tax.”
- The government opposed interest, citing a provision in the HMT statute stating the HMT “shall not be treated as a tax” for purposes of any law relating to the administration and enforcement of internal revenue taxes.
- The Court of International Trade denied IBM’s interest claim, and IBM appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the HMT qualifies as an “internal-revenue tax” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2411’s interest provision.
2. Whether the statutory directive that HMT “shall not be treated as a tax” for internal-revenue administration and enforcement purposes forecloses § 2411 interest on HMT export refunds.
3. Whether interest is required absent a specific statutory authorization where the underlying exaction was unconstitutional.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of IBM’s claim for interest.
- The court held that IBM was not entitled to interest under 28 U.S.C. § 2411 on refunds of export-related HMT payments.
- The Supreme Court denied certiorari.

## Legal Principles

- Interest against the United States on tax-related refunds is available only when authorized by statute.
- 28 U.S.C. § 2411 applies to judgments for overpayments of “any internal-revenue tax,” but that coverage depends on the tax’s statutory classification.
- Where Congress provides that an assessment “shall not be treated as a tax” for purposes of laws relating to the administration and enforcement of internal revenue taxes, courts will treat that directive as controlling in determining eligibility for statutory interest provisions tied to internal-revenue taxes.
- A refund ordered for an unconstitutional exaction does not, by itself, create an entitlement to interest beyond what positive law provides.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit concluded that Congress expressly removed the HMT from internal-revenue tax treatment for laws governing administration and enforcement, so the HMT is not an “internal-revenue tax” under 28 U.S.C. § 2411 and IBM could not recover statutory interest on its export-related HMT refunds.


Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. United States, 201 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2000)