Academic Research on Recoupment

• Testing for predation: Is recoupment feasible, Elzinga, K. G., & Mills, D. E. (1989). Antitrust Bull., 34, 869. Predatory pricing is a form of pricing that aggressively undercuts competitors prices as a way to discipline or eliminate them. Most often, such a move forces a business rivals to either lapse or hand over price leadership to the business. A notable attribute of such predatory pricing initiatives is sustainable short-term losses on the part of the predator itself in order to inflict more severe, often unsustainable losses on the competitor. 
• Predatory pricing and recoupment, Leslie, C. R. (2013). Colum. L. Rev., 113, 1695. This paper scrutinizes the conditions that lead to the practice of recoupment and also studies its evolution. The author points out flaws in the assessment of recoupment in courts of law, mostly as a result of judges underestimating the complexities of market entry. He goes on to describe the various ways in which recoupment can occur. The paper contends that there are several instances where it becomes impossible to satisfy recoupment requirements owing to their structures. 
• The Role of Recoupment in Predatory Pricing Analyses, Hemphill, C. S. (2000). Stan. L. Rev., 53, 1581. This paper scrutinizes the primary objective of recoupment and argues that contrary to its common interpretation by courts, recoupment is a narrow structural analysis of a market. As such, it will be highly counterproductive to explain recoupment in terms of a predators behavior, in addition to structure. Moreover, it would be worthwhile to delve deeper into structure by analyzing its additional attributes.
• The Doctrine of Recoupment in Federal Taxation, McConnell, D. N. (1941). Va. L. Rev., 28, 577. This article revisits the situations that led to the formulation of the doctrine of recoupment and the theories that constitute its foundation. It also details the applications of recoupment in law and equity and underlines its various shortcomings. The author then proceeds to explain the implications of recoupment in present day federal taxation.
• Some Limits of Equitable Recoupment, Tax Mitigation, and Res Judicata: Reflections Prompted by Chertkof v. United States, Willis, S. J. (1984). Tax Law., 38, 625. This paper explores the limitations of the mitigation provisions of the Doctrine of Equitable Recoupment. The Doctrine was formulated to offer remedies for inconsistencies in taxes. However, an incorrect decision of the Fourth Circuit resulted in an improper expansion of the mitigation provisions. Inaction as well as gratuitous actions on the part of the parties also made recoupment unobtainable. 
• Equitable Recoupment: Revisiting an Old and Inconsistent Remedy, Watson, C. E. (1996). Fordham L. Rev., 65, 691. The federal government's statute of limitations places restrictions on both the government as well as the taxpayer vis--vis asserting claims against the other after the expiration of a stipulated period of time. The formulation of such a statute stemmed from the need to maintain fairness as well as administrative efficiency. This article contends that recoupment comes across as a hugely ineffectual modern-day solution and instead, proposes development of the established elements and an approach that is more focused on the individual equities of each case.
• Modern-Day Equitable Recoupment and the Two Tax Effect: Avoidance of the Statutes of Limitation in Federal Tax Controversies, Andrews, A. W. (1986). Ariz. L. Rev., 28, 595. Any dispute that involves federal income, gift, estate and excise taxes can be legally settled in three discrete ways. First, a taxpayer involved in a dispute can approach the United States Tax Court, which is a prepayment forum, to litigate the merits of the dispute. Besides, there are two post payment forums that the taxpayer can approach after paying the taxes in full - The United States Claims Court, or an equivalent federal district court. Post payment tribunals. 
• Can Governments Impose a New Tort Duty to Prevent External Risks-The No-Fault Theories behind Today's High-Stakes Government Recoupment Suits, Schwartz, V. E., Goldberg, P., & Appel, C. E. (2009). Wake Forest L. Rev., 44, 923. This paper discusses the significant transformation of tort actions initiated by state and local government authorities against product manufacturers. The authors contend that government lawsuits target manufacturers whose products create external costs to be borne by others. Manufacturers of weapons are typically targeted since their products can be readily used to harm others, thus instigating litigation. There are also other products such as medication and toxic materials like lead paint that can result in litigation if misused or improperly handled. 
• Equitable Recoupment Revisited: The Scope Of The Doctrine In Federal Tax Cases After United States v. Dalm, Tierney, J. E. (1991). Ky. LJ, 80, 95. This paper examines the doctrine of equitable recoupment in the aftermath of the United States v. Dalm Supreme Court case of 1990. The aforementioned doctrine authorized the government to collect taxes and any taxpayer to collect refunds on taxes after the running of the statute of limitations for such collection in instances where the statute of limitations produces an inequitable outcome. 
• Markets linked by rising marginal costs: Implications for multimarket contact, recoupment, and retaliatory entry, Chen, Z., & Ross, T. W. (2007). Review of Industrial Organization, 31(1), 1-21. The authors scrutinize firms that service multiple locations from a single facility with escalating marginal costs. The objective of the study is to analyze the effect of such firms on product prices and well-being of multimarket contact. This model is also able to explain the phenomenon of recoupment in multimarket operations - i.e. utilizing higher prices in one market to pay for lower prices in another market.
• Recoupment re-examined, Kohn, S. L. (1999). Am. Bankr. LJ, 73, 353. This paper scrutinizes the recoupment doctrine in bankruptcy and its legal implications. Recoupment enables a party to legally eschew restrictions and responsibilities applicable to other creditors involved in the bankruptcy estate. It also facilitates a favourable settlement of its claims. The Bankruptcy Code of the mid-1980s paved the way for several judicial applications of recoupment. However, towards the end of the 20th century, most courts started refusing to enforce recoupment.