§6511 — Limitations on credit or refund

Section 6511(h) effectively overruled the result reached by the Supreme Court in Brockamp and allowed for equitable tolling of the section 6511 limitations period when taxpayers were unable to manage their financial affairs.

Section 6320 is easily distinguishable from the section 6511 deadline for filing tax refund claims at issue in Brockamp, which is not subject to equitable tolling.

While section 6511 sets a period of limitation on claims for credit or refund of overpayments of tax, this period of limitation does not apply to a deposit in the nature of a cash bond.

The parties agree that the time period relevant here is set forth in section 6512(b)(3)(B).2 Subparagraph (B) refers to tax paid "within the period which would be ap- plicable under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), ifon the date ofthe mailing ofthe notice ofdeficiency a claim had been filed (whether or not filed) stating the grounds upon which the Tax Court finds that there is an overpayment."3 Section 2Section 6512(b)(3)(A) is inapplicable here because it refers to tax paid "after the mailing o

" We distinguish statutes of limitations from jurisdictional deadlines by applying the normal rules of construction . We start with the words of the statute and their context . See Pugh v . Brook (In re Pugh) , 158 F.3d 530, 534 (11th Cir . 1998) . We look past plain meaning to determine congressional intent only if th e 13 Congress later amended section 6511 to add subsection (h), which allows equitable tolling in certain circumstances when the taxpayer is disabled .

Second, section 6015(a) and (g), unlike ERISA, expressly preempts community property law. Sec. 6015(a) (section 6015 determinations are made “without regard to community property laws”), (g) (refunds are made “notwithstanding any other law or rule of law (other than section 6511, 6512(b), 7121, or 7122)”).

.2008-261 ("We need not decide whether the evidence is admissible,, because we find that it is insufficient to establish that petitioner was financiall y disabled within the meaning of section 6511(h), .") .-.,', order the " refund.

We need not decide which standard of review is applicable because respondent prevails under either standard .

2 It is unclear whether respondent herein still raises an issue as to the applicability to the facts of this case of our holding in Greene-Thapedi v .

We need not decide whether the evidence is admissible, because we find that it is insufficient to establish that petitioner was financially disabled within the meaning of section 6511(h) .

James challenges the IRS’ denial of relief under section 6015, asserting that the tax examiner incorrectly concluded that section 6511 barred the refund of her 2014 overpayment.

Accordingly, we disagree with petitioner's attempt to insert the limitations period of its choosing in lieu of section 6511 in order to secure the benefits of the Regulation.

Denial of Claimed Overpayment In February 2018 the IRS notified petitioner and intervenor that, because they filed their 2013 tax return more than three years after its original due date (i.e., April 2014), their claimed overpayment of $9,645 for 2013 had been disallowed pursuant to section 6511.

Section 6511 requires that a claim for credit ofa tax overpayment "shall be filed by the taxpayerwithin 3 years from the time the return was filed or 2 years from the time the tax was paid" and then limits the amount ofcredit or refund to payments made within two "look back" periods.

We hold that she is - 16 - [*16] entitled to a refund ofany tax paid that was attributable to the liability of Mr.

Relevant Statutory Provisions Section 6511 governs the timeliness ofrefund claims.

1, 9 (1990).] Thus, we hold that we lackjurisdiction to decide whether the bankruptcy court discharged petitioner's tax liability for 2001.

Rader's behalfon January 21, 2011, did not give her three years from that date in which to assert a refund claim for 2006 pursuant to section 6511(b)(2)(A).

Rader's behalfon January 21, 2011, did not give her three years from that date in which to assert a refund claim for 2006 pursuant to section 6511(b)(2)(A).

Rader's behalfon January 21, 2011, did not give her three years from that date in which to assert a refund claim for 2006 pursuant to section 6511(b)(2)(A).

timely for 2006; (3) whether petitioner is liable for a section 6654(a) addition to tax for failure to make estimated tax payments for 2006; (4) whether this Court has jurisdiction to abate the interest on the deficiency and additions to tax for 2006; and (5) whetherpetitioner is entitled to reliefpursuant to section 6511(h).2 FlNDINGS OF FACT Petitioner refused to stipulate any ofthe facts.

However, it appears that to the extent the returns reflected overpayments, some credits or refunds may have been limited or barred pursuant to section 6511.

Respondent disallowed the $1,292 overpayment credit pursuant to section 6511 .

Nevertheless, we hold for the sake of consistent treatment that petitioners' right to an allowance of overpayments in connection with their section 183 election be at least coterminous with respondent's authority to make an assessment under section 183(e)(4).

ecifically spelled out in the statute, the Supreme Court distinguished its prior holding in United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347 (1997), which held that equitable tolling was not applicable to the period of limitations on tax refunds provided in section 6511. In Holland, the Supreme Court noted that in Brockamp it had interpreted the section 6511 limitations period as foreclosing application of that doctrine but had emphasized that section 6511: (1) “se[t] forth its time limitations in unusua

In 2022 Brockamp was distinguished by the Supreme Court in Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, 142 S. Ct. 1493 (2022). Boechler held that equitable tolling applies to the 30-day period for a person to appeal a collection due process determination. Id. at 1501. The 30-day period set forth in section 6330(d)(1) provides: “The person may, within 30 days of a determination under this section, petition the Tax Court for review of such determination (and the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction with respect

In sum, we hold that because petitioner filed her request for reliefover two years later, the refund ofthe $3,439 respondent applied from 2011 for 2002 (the liability in issue) is barred by the statute oflimitations under section 6511. 2. Petitioner's Request for Equitable Relief Petitioner, in essence, requests relieffrom the periods oflimitation based on sympathy for her personal circumstances. However, periods oflimitation are not subject to waiverbased on sympathy for personal circumstances.

6511 also establishes the period oflimitations for filing a refund claim, but under the circumstances ofthis case, that period oflimitations is irrelevant: Unlike the provisions governing refund suits in United States District Court or the United States Court ofFederal Claims, which make timely filing ofa refund claim ajurisdictional prerequisite to bringing suit, see 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a); Martin v. United States, 833 F.2d 655, 658-659 (7th Cir. 1987), the restrictions governing the Tax Court's a

6511 also establishes the period oflimitations for filing a refund claim, but under the circumstances ofthis case, that period oflimitations is irrelevant: Unlike the provisions governing refund suits in United States District Court or the United States Court ofFederal Claims, which make timely filing ofa refund claim ajurisdictional prerequisite to bringing suit, see 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a); Martin v. United States, 833 F.2d 655, 658-659 (7th Cir. 1987), the restrictions governing the Tax Court's a

347 (1997), the Supreme Court similarly held that, although a taxpayer’s mental disability might be a valid reason for equitable tolling, the Court could not equitably toll section 6511’s deadline for filing a refund claim because it contained no “implied equitable tolling” exception.

Conceivably, there could be a collection action review proceeding where (unlike the instant case) the proposed collection action is not moot and where pursuant to sec. 6330(c) (2) (B), the taxpayer is entitled to challenge "the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability". In such a case, the validity of the proposed collection action might depend upon whether the taxpayer has any unpaid balance, which might implicate the question of whether the taxpayer has paid more than was owed. 2° S

— Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), notwithstanding any other law or rule of law (other than section 6511, 6512(b), 7121, or 7122), credit or refund shall be allowed or made to the extent attributable to the application of this section.

United States, supra, as establishing a generally applicable rule that a remittance in respect of a tax cannot become a “payment” of that tax for purposes of section 6511 until the Commissioner assesses the tax in question.

The time limits for requesting a refund provided by section 6511 apply to refunds sought under section 6015(f).

Credits and Refunds.-- (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), notwithstanding any other law or rule of law (other than section 6511, 6512(b), 7121, or 7122), credit or refund shall be allowed or made to the extent attributable to the application of this section. (2) Res judicata.--In the case of any election under subsection (b) or (c), if a decision of a court in any prior proceeding for the same taxable year has become final, such decision shall be conclusive except wit

6511(h)(2), I.R.C., provides that an individual is “financially disabled” if “such individual is unable to manage his financial affairs by reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment of the individual which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” Sec. 6511(h)(2), I.R.C., requires that the physical or mental impairment be that of the individual taxpayer rather than another individua

— Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), notwithstanding any other law or rule of law (other than section 6511, 6512(b), 7121, or 7122), credit or refund shall be allowed or made to the extent attributable to the application of this section.

ing the grounds upon which the Tax Court finds that there is an overpayment, or (C) within the period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), in respect of any claim for refund filed within the applicable period specified in section 6511 and before the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency–- (i) which had not been disallowed before that date, (ii) which had been disallowed before that date and in respect of which a timely suit for refund could have been commenc

provides: (3) Limit on amount of credit or refund.–-No such credit or refund shall be allowed or made of any por- tion of the tax unless the Tax Court determines as part of its decision that such portion was paid-- * * * * * * * - 7 - (B) within the period which would be applica- ble under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), if on the date of the mailing of the notice of defi- ciency a claim had been filed (whether or not filed) stating the grounds upon which the Tax Court finds that there is an o

r all legal purposes. In Flagg v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-297, we rejected the taxpayer’s argument that certain returns prepared by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) pursuant to section 6020(b)(1) were returns for purposes of section 6511. We concluded in Flagg that such returns are not returns for purposes of section 6511. In support of that conclusion, we relied on section 6501(b)(3) and several cases, including United States v. Stafford, 983 F.2d 25, 27 (5th Cir. 1993)

Respondent argues that the $41,137 tax overpayments for the non- CDP years are barred by the refund period of limitations under section 6511 and are not available for credit against petitioners' $29,203 outstanding taxes for the CDP years .

Based upon the undisputed facts in this case, petitioner is not entitled to a refund of his overpaid 1996 income tax unless the running of the period of limitations in section 6511 was suspended.

3, 1987) (regulation), with respect to export sales made during its taxable years 1987 through 1989, in connection with petitioner’s claims for refunds for overpayment of taxes for those years under section 6511; and, if not, (2) whether the regulation is valid.

er section 6654(a) is reduced by the amount ofallowable overpayment credits. Sec. 6654(f)(3). An overpayment may not be credited against estimated tax for a subsequent taxable year unless the claim for credit was filed within the period set forth in section 6511. See Stephenson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-32, 1995 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 35, at *7. - 21 - As previously discussed, petitioner does not dispute that the claim for the credit ofthe overpayment for 2006 was untimely and barred under se

Section 6511 outlines the various periods of 4The required annual payment is 90% ofthe tax shown on the return, or if no return is made, 90% ofthe tax for such year. Sec. 6654(d)(1)(B)(i). Returns submitted after the IRS has mailed a notice ofdeficiency for a particularyear are not considered "filed" for purposes ofsection 6654(d)(1)(B)(i). See Men

2)(A)) under circumstances in which the taxpayer filed a return after issuance of the notice of deficiency, and, in Healer, we followed Lundy and rejected the taxpayer’s argument that an SFR constituted a return filed by the taxpayer for purposes of section 6511. Thus, the 2006 SFR that respondent executed on Mrs. Rader’s behalf on January 21, 2011, did not give her three years from that date in which to assert a refund claim for 2006 pursuant to section 6511(b)(2)(A). We also agree with respond

ting the grounds upon which the Tax Court finds that there is an overpayment, or (c) within the period which would be appliçable under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), in respect ofany claim for refund filed within the applicable period specified in section 6511 anfl before the date ofthe mailing ofthe notice ofdeficiency-- 4 20 - petition, for purposes ofsection 65.12(b)(3)(B) its claim is deemed filed on the date ofthe notice ofdeficiency, January 22, 2010.

Petitioner's» request for a credit of her 2002 overpayment of Federal income tax tosher 2003 Federal income -tax liabilitya is barred by section 6511 (b) (2) (A) -; - therefore, the 2003 tax.

ing arguendo that there was an overpayment), any claim that overpayments are available as a credit to offset the 2005 tax liability would also be time barred. The period of limitations for filing a claim for credit or refund with the IRS is found in section 6511. Petitioner's - 11 - refund claims, which were made when he filed his amended 2001 and 2002 returns, were timely under section 6511, and respondent did not dispute the timeliness of those refund claims.' However, 'Sec. 6511(a) provides:

1 overpayment from 1995 against these outstanding tax liabilities . Respondent contends that the $8,821 overpayment is not available for credit against these outstanding tax liabilities because it is barred by the refund period of limitations under section 6511 . Background The parties have stipulated some facts, which are so found . When he petitioned the Court, petitioner resided in New Jersey . Petitioner is an attorney . Petitioner's 1995 Overpayment For 1995 petitioner made tax payments tot

Petitioner is not entitled to a refund of the payment with respect to the 1997 tax year deemed made on April 15, 1998 ; it is barred under section 6511 (b)(2)(A) .

6511 (b) (2) (B) . Petitioner contends that the substitute for return under section 6020(b) should be "counted" as his return . However, this Court has expressly held that a substitute for return prepared by the Commissioner pursuant to section 6020(b) does not constitute a return filed by the taxpayer for purposes of section 6511 . Healer v.

Respondent asserts that the refund for 1997, paid by offset of the overpayment for 2000, is barred under section 6511 since the claim for refund was made more than 3 years after the return was filed and more than 2 years from the time the tax was paid.

137, 160 (2003) (stating that a taxpayer granted, pursuant to section 6015(f), relief from joint and several liability is, subject to the limitations set forth in section 6511, entitled to a refund of an overpayment).

Section 6015(g)(1) provides: “Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), notwithstanding any other law or rule of law (other than section 6511, 6512(b), 7121, or 7122), credit or refund shall be allowed or made to the extent attributable to the application of this section.” Accordingly, we shall proceed to determine the proper amount owed by, or to, petitioner pursuant to section 6015(g).

Consequently, the only issue for decision is the substantive question of whether section 6511 precludes the allowance of any portion of petitioner’s 1991 overpayment of tax as a credit against his liabilities for 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1997.

Section 6511, governing the period of limitations for claiming credits and refunds, provides that where no return has been filed, a taxpayer must make a claim for an overpayment - 7 - credit within 2 years of the date the taxes were paid. Sec. 6511(a). Likewise, the amount of any credit is limited to taxes paid within 2 years prior to the date the

Consequently, the 2-year look-back period of section 6511 applies, and petitioners are entitled to a refund only of taxes paid within the 2 years immediately prior to the date the notices of deficiency were mailed.

The third condition, set out in section 6512(b)(3)(C), applies where an actual claim for refund, which is timely under section 6511, has been filed before the mailing of the notice of deficiency and either has not been disallowed or, if disallowed, was or could have been the basis of a timely refund suit as of that date.

ing the grounds upon which the Tax Court finds that there is an overpayment, or (C) within the period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), in respect of any claim for refund filed within the applicable period specified in section 6511 and before the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency-- - 11 - (i) which had not been disallowed before that date, (ii) which had been disallowed before that date and in respect of which a timely suit for refund could have been

r additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995. After concessions, the issues for decision are: 1. Whether petitioner's refunds of overpayments for 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995 are barred by the statute of limitations under section 6511. We hold that section 6511 bars petitioner's refunds for 1992, 1993, and 1994, but that petitioner is eligible for a refund of his 1995 overpayment. 2. Whether petitioner is entitled to receive refunds of his overpayments for 1992, 1993,

If a claim filed on the 3(...continued) under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), in respect of any claim for refund filed within the applicable period specified in section 6511 and before the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency-- (i) which had not been disallowed before that date, (ii) which had been disallowed before that date and in respect of which a timely suit for refund could have been commenced as of that date, or (iii) in respect of which a suit for refund had been commenced be

ing the grounds upon which the Tax Court finds that there is an overpayment, or (C) within the period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), in respect of any claim for refund filed within the applicable period specified in section 6511 and before the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency— (i) which had not been disallowed before that date, (ii) which had been disallowed before that date and in respect of which a timely suit for refund could have been commence

Petitioner argues that each "return" prepared by respondent under section 6020(b) was a return for purposes of section 6511, and he contends in his brief that respondent prepared the returns on August 4, 1994.

tained age 50 before Jan. 1, 1986. See TRA 1986, sec. 1122(h)(5), 100 Stat. 2471-2472. Respondent concedes on brief that petitioner had reached age 50 before Jan. 1, 1986. Nevertheless, petitioner sought to use 5-year averaging. - 14 - refund under section 6511. See also section 1.402(e)-3(c)(1), Proposed Income Tax Regs., 40 Fed. Reg. 18810 (Apr. 30, 1975).6 In this case, petitioners have stipulated that their claims for refund for tax years 1987, 1988, and 1991 were barred by section 6511(b)(2

h would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), if on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency a claim had been filed (whether or not filed) stating the grounds upon which the Tax Court finds that there is an overpayment, or 2Sec. 6511 provides in relevant part: (a) Period of Limitation on Filing Claim.--Claim for credit or refund of an overpayment of any tax (continued...) - 5 - existence and amount of any overpayment of tax when a taxpayer had not filed a return prior t

347, 350–51 (1997) (holding section 6511 to be jurisdictional).

347, 354 (1997), held that the period to file a refund lawsuit under section 6511 was not subject to equitable tolling.

We can’t refund your payments or credits if you filed your claim for relief more than 2 years after you paid the tax, unless you filed your claim within three years of the date you filed your return (Section 6511 of the Code).

Section 6015(g)(1) provides: “Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), notwithstanding any other law or rule of law (other than section 6511, 6512(b), 7121, or 7122), credit or refund shall be allowed or made to the extent attributable to the application of this section.” Section 6015(g)(3) limits the availability of a credit or refund, providing that “[n]o credit or refund shall be allowed as a result of an election under subsection (c).” Thus, petitioner may only be eligi

145 (1960); (2) a proper administrative refund claim, see § 7422(a); (3) a timely administrative refund claim, see § 6511; (4) disallowance of the claim, or the passage of 6 months, see § 6532; and (5) the timely filing of the refund suit, see § 6532.

yer from other years for a particular year of the taxpayer is subject to the applicable refund period oflimitations. See Crum v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-216. The statutoryperiod oflimitations for filing a claim for credit or refund is found in section 6511. See sec. 6511(a). A taxpayermust file a claim for credit or refund ofan overpayment oftax within three years from the time the return was filed or two years from the time the tax was paid, whichever ofsuch periods expires later. R The a

139E(a) provides that gross income does not include the value ofany Indian general welfare benefit.

139E(a) provides that gross income does not include the value ofany Indian general welfare benefit.

entitled to reliefunder section 6015(f). II. Refund Petitioner has demonstrated that the levied funds were taken from her Associated Bank account. Respondent concedes that ifpetitioner is entitled to relief, her request for a refund is timely under section 6511. Accordingly, - 23 - [*23] petitioner is entitled to a refund ofthe $21,637.93 levied from her Associated Bank account. III. Conclusion For the reasons stated above the Court finds that petitioner is entitled to equitable reliefunder sec

Because petitioner's 2012 overpayment, $5,061, exceeds the amount ofher liability conceded above, $2,895, petitioner may be entitled to a refund under section 6015(g)(1) to the extent not otherwise prohibited under section 6511 (and other sections not relevant to this case).

that she is entitled to reliefunder sec. 6015(f) and that the Court should invalidate sec. 1.6015-4(b), Income Tax Regs., which bars refunds under certain circumstances. Because we determine that petitioner is entitled to reliefunder sec. 6015(b), we need not address this alternative argument. 5 Petitioner meets the requirements for a refund under sec. 6511.

A) In general.--Forpurposes ofparagraph (1), an individual is financially disabled ifsuch individual is 3Petitioner's overpayment is attributable to tax withheld from his wages (and remitted to the Department ofthe Treasury) for 2009. For purposes ofsec. 6511, petitioner is deemed to have paid that tax on April 15, 2010. See sec. 6513(b)(1). The notice ofdeficiency was mailed to petitioner on September 9, 2013--more than three years after petitioner's tax was deemed to have been paid. There is n

r tax year that was applied to the joint income tax liability to the extent that the requesting spouse can establish that the requesting spouse provided the funds for the overpayment. The availability ofrefunds is subject to the refund limitations ofsection 6511. [Emphasis added.] Even ifwe assume, arguendo, that petitioner is eligible for innocent spouse reliefunder section 6015, she would not be entitled to a refund for 2011. Petitioner did not contribute any funds to the payment ofthejoint 20

347, 349-354 (1997) (citing need for efficient tax administration in holding that equitable tolling does not apply to three-yearperiod prescribed by section 6511 for filing an administrative claim for refund); United States v.

tes in a court proceeding in which the requesting spouse is a party or which involves property ofthe requesting spouse." S_e_e sec. 1.6015-5(b)(2)(i), Income Tax Regs. - 14 - applicable return or 2 years after he or she has paid the applicable tax, sec. 6511). Rev. Proc. 2013-34, sec. 4.01(3), 2013-43 I.R.B. 397, 399. And against this backdrop, together with the prescribed manner for requesting section 6015 relief, it is apparent that the words "filed" and "made" in section 6015(e)(1)(A)(i)(II)

thin the statutorilyprescribed time, in this case two years from the time the tax - 8 - [*8] was paid.4 See sec. 6015(g)(1) (providing, in pertinentpart, that a credit or refund may be allowed pursuant to section 6015 subject to the requirements of section 6511). Petitioner contends that her submission ofthe Form 8379 during 2008 was an informal claim, was made within the two-yearperiod, contained pertinent information, and tolled the limitation period until she filed the Form 8857 in 2010. Resp

intent; and (7) absent certain enumerated 2Notice 2012-8, sec 3.01, 2012-4 I.R.B. at 311, eliminates the two-year deadline to request equitable reliefand replaces it with the periods oflimitations provided by sec. 6052 (relating to collections) or sec. 6511 (relating to filing a claim for credit or refund). Our analysis is unchanged by this revision given that petitioner's request was timely under any ofthese deadlines. - 8 - [*8] exceptions, the tax liability from which the requesting spouse s

2011-32 I.R.B. 135, the IRS changed its position and will now consider requests for equitable reliefunder sec. 6015(f) ifthe period oflimitation on collection of tax provided by sec. 6502 or the period oflimitation on credits or refunds provided in sec. 6511 remains open for the tax years at issue. 14 On briefrespondent argues that halfofthe income from Willow Creek Dental for 2002 through 2005 should be attributed to petitioner and that petitioner therefore does not satisfy the threshold condi

Under section 6511(a), a claim for credit or refund ofoverpayments ordinarily must be filed within three years from the time the return was filed or two years from the time the tax was paid, whichever is later. Petitioner is deemed to have 5 As a preliminary inquiry, Weber v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 348, 363-364 (2012), determined that th

2011-32 I.R.B. 135, the IRS changed its position and will now consider requests for equitable reliefunder sec. 6015(f) ifthe period oflimitation on collection of tax provided by sec. 6502 or the period oflimitation on credits or refunds provided in sec. 6511 remains open for the tax years at issue. 14 On briefrespondent argues that halfofthe income from Willow Creek Dental for 2002 through 2005 should be attributed to petitioner and that petitioner therefore does not satisfy the threshold condi

Under section 6511(a), a claim for credit or refund ofoverpayments ordinarily must be filed within three years from the time the return was filed or two years from the time the tax was paid, whichever is later. Petitioner is deemed to have 5 As a preliminary inquiry, Weber v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 348, 363-364 (2012), determined that th

ng to the Supreme Court's subtle reading requires full payment as a prerequisite to court review. Section 6330, by contrast, necessarily allows court review where there is (continued...) - 27 - sec. 7422(a)"; (3) the timely filing ofthat claim see sec. 6511; (4) the disallowance ofthe claim (or the passage ofsix months), see sec. 6532(a)(1); and (5) the timely filing ofthe refund suit, see id. The IRS disputes Mr. Weber's fulfillment ofonly one ofthese requirements-i.e., the timeliness ofhis Aug

d. Notice 2012-8,"2012-4 I.R.B. 309, 312, proposes to elimingte the two-year déadline and replace it with a requirement that the request for reliefbe filed within the applicable period oflimitations provided by sec. 6502 (relating to collections) or sec. 6511 (relating to claims for credit or refund). - 17 - [*17] attributable to Mr. Rozell, she has satisfied the seventh condition. Petitioner contends, however, that she also qualifies for relief, under the abuse exception to the seventh conditio

lthough petitioner does not explicitly claim 8Notice 2012-8, sec. 3.01, 2012-4 I.R.B. at 311, eliminates the two-year deadline to request equitable reliefand replaces it with the period oflimitations provided by sec. 6502 (relating to collection) or sec. 6511 (relating to filing a claim for credit or refund). Our analysis is unchanged by this revision given the parties' stipulation that petitioner's request was timely. 'As discussed infra p. 23, petitionerasserts that Dr. Sriram abused her physi

380n brief, respdndent argues that, even ifthis Court found that the MCLT was a grantor trust as to petitioner, petitioners' claim for a refund or credit for amounts paid by the li luidating trustee in 1992 and 1993 is barred as untimely pursuant to sec. 6511. In the light ofpetitioner's concession at trial and our finding that the MCLT is not a grantor trust as to petitioner, we need not address that issue. - 64 - The Secretary is authorized to abate the unpaid portion ofan assessment of any ta

2011-32 I.R.B. 135, the IRS changed its position and will now consider requests for equitable reliefunder sec. 6015(f) ifthe period oflimitation on collection of tax provided by sec. 6502 or the period oflimitation on credits or refunds provided in sec. 6511 remains open for the tax years at issue. - 16 - [*16] Petitioner contends in his opening briefthat he meets all ofthe safe harbor provisions ofRev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.02, but he concedes that the Court would have to take an "expanded vie

The new requirement would provide that a requesting spouse must file a claim for equitable reliefbefore the expiration of the period oflimitations for collection under section 6502 or the period of limitations for credit or refund under section 6511, ifapplicable.

The third condition, set out in section 6512(b)(3)(C), applies where an actual claim for refund, which is timely under section 6511, has been filed before the mailing of the notice of deficiency and either has not been disallowed or, if disallowed, was or could have been the basis of a timely refund suit as of the date of the notice of deficiency.

— Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), notwithstanding any other law or rule of law (other than section 6511, 6512(b), 7121, or 7122), credit or refund shall be allowed or made to the extent attributable to the application of this section.

section 7491(a). As there is no dispute as to a factual.issue in this case, section 7491(a) is not applicable. A taxpayer seeking a refund of overpaid taxes ordinarily mu t ile a timely claim for a refund with the IRS that meets the requirements of section 6511. That section contains two separate provlslons for determining the,timeliness ofia Êefund claim: The taxpayer must file a claim for a refund "within 3 years from the time the return was filed or 2 years from the time the tax was paid, wh

235, 240 (1996) ("[T]he restrictions governing the Tax Court's authority to award a refund of overpaid taxes incorporate only the look-back period and not the filing deadline from section 6511 .") ; Krape v .

Any refund available to a taxpayer is su ject to limitations imposed by section 6511, 6512(b), 7121, br 7122 .

RVED SEP 1 8 2008 - 2 - The issue for decision is whether respondent's Appeal s Office abused its discretion in concluding that petitioners ' offer-in-compromise (OIC) was not acceptable because, among other things, alleged overpayments of $2,111 for 1989, $4,561 for 1991, and $6,879 for 1992 were barred by the refund period o f limitations under section 6511 and not available for credi t against petitioners' outstanding Federal income taxes for 199 4 through 2002 .

(g) Credits and Refunds.-- (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), notwithstanding any other law or rule of law (other than section 6511, 6512 (b), 7121, or 7122), credit or refund shall be allowed or made to the extent attributable to the application of this section.

Finally, even if petitioners were to file amended returns at this time for those prior years, it is most likely they could not recover credits or refunds because, under section 6511, there is a limitations period that is generally 3 years from the date the return was filed or 2 years from the date the tax was paid.

i was predicated partly on a long jurisdictional history that militated against this Court's assuming refund jurisdiction without express legislative provision and partly on the absence in sec. 6330 of limitations corresponding to the limitations in sec. 6511 on claims for credits or refunds of overpayments of tax. Such concerns are not presented by the instant case, which does not involve any claim of an overpayment of taxes and does not involve any refund or credit with respect to an overpayme

- 7 - Respondent contends that the statute of limitations under section 6511 bars application of these overpayments to offset petitioner’s unpaid liabilities for 1997.

that petitioner was eligible for relief under section 6015(b) for the full amount of the tax liability for 1979; however, respondent further determined that petitioner was not entitled to a refund of the overpayment credited on April 15, 1993, under section 6511. Petitioner filed a timely petition for review pursuant to section 6015(e). The issue for decision is whether the refund or credit from the 1992 tax year, which was applied on April 15, 1993, to the outstanding tax liability for 1979, is

Credits and Refunds.-- (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), notwithstanding any other law or rule of law (other than section 6511, 6512(b), 7121, or 7122), credit or refund shall be allowed or made to the extent attributable to the application of this section.

Section 6511 contains two separate provisions to determine the period of limitations for refund or credit claims. First, section 6511(a) establishes a filing deadline. Second, section 6511(b)(2)(A) establishes a “look-back” period, which provides a - 5 - ceiling limitation on the amount of an allowable refund or credit. Commissioner v. Lundy, 516

T.C. 191, 195-197 (2002). Respondent’s denial of section 6015 relief for that year, albeit based upon different grounds and perhaps ironically, cannot be considered an abuse of discretion. Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case Division. To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered for respondent. 1 Taking into account the sec. 6511 period of limitations, petitioner’s remedy, if any, appears to be a traditional claim for refund.

163, 168-170 (continued...) - 37 - section 6653(a),3 section 6662,4 section 6013,5 section 6033,6 section 6651(f),7 section 6511,8 section 6011,9 section 6012,10 section 6072,11 and former section 6661,12 among others.

Credits and Refunds.-- (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), notwithstanding any other law or rule of law (other than section 6511, 6512(b), 7121, or 7122), - 7 - credit or refund shall be allowed or made to the extent attributable to the application of this section.

— Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), notwithstanding any other law or rule of law (other than section 6511, 6512(b), 7121, or 7122), credit or refund shall be allowed or made to the extent attributable to the application of this section.

We apply this test to “returns” for purposes of section 6501, section 6651(a)(1), section 6653(a), section 6662, section 6013, section 6033, section 6651(f), section 6511, section 6011, section 6012, section 6072, and former section 6661, among others.

ction 6501(b)(3), “Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) of section 6020(b), the execution of a return by the Secretary pursuant to the authority conferred by such section shall not start the running of the period of limitations on assessment and 5(...continued) (2) the amount of rebates, as defined in subsection (b)(2), made.

rences in the Code to the term “return” as not including a return prepared by the Commissioner. For example, in Healer v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 316 (2000), we held that a section 6020(b) return was not a return filed by the taxpayer for purposes of section 6511. Likewise, Congress has expressly or impliedly limited the application of section 6020(b)(2). Under section 6501(b)(3), “Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) of section 6020(b), the execution of a return by the Secretary pursu

Petitioner contends, however, that she was “financially disabled” within the meaning of section 6511(h), and, therefore, the period of limitations set forth in section 6511 was tolled.

ing the grounds upon which the Tax Court finds that there is an overpayment, or (C) Within the period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), in respect of any claim for refund filed within the applicable period specified in section 6511 and before the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency-- (i) which had not been disallowed before that date, (continued...) -11- 243-244 (1996);7 Wadlow v.

se. On the one hand, he is constrained by Rosenman v. United States, 323 U.S. 658 (1945), where the Supreme Court held that a claim for refund for a remittance made as a "deposit" rather than as a "payment" was not time barred by the predecessor to section 6511.. See Ertman v. United States, 165 F.3d 204, 206 (2d Cir. 1999). Thus, if decedent's 1986 remittance was a deposit, petitioner kould, in general, be entitled to recover it without interest, at any time before the IRS is.entitled to assess

Russell's payments but contended that section 6511 limited any allowable refund to payments made within 2 years before the filing of such claim.

Section 6513(b) provides that "For purposes of section 6511 or 6512--(1) Any tax actually deducted and withheld at the source during any calendar year under chapter 24 shall, in respect of the recipient of the income, be deemed to have been paid by him on the 15th day of the fourth month following the close of his taxable year"

Subsection (a) of section 6513 provides: For purposes of section 6511 [relating to limitations on credit or refund], any return filed before the last day prescribed for the filing thereof shall be considered as filed on such last day.

Time Return Deemed Filed and Tax Considered Paid (a) Early Return or Advance Payment of Tax.-- For purposes of section 6511, any return filed before the last day prescribed for the filing thereof shall be considered as filed on such last day.

Section 6513(b) provides that “For purposes of section 6511 or 6512 — (1) Any tax actually deducted and withheld at the source during any calendar year under chapter 24 shall, in respect of the recipient of the income, be deemed to have been paid by him on the 15th day of the fourth month following the close of his taxable year”.

rom the NOL's.2 2 Petitioners filed a refund suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, claiming a refund or credit based solely on their 1986 return as filed. The District Court ruled that the refund or credit was barred by sec. 6511. Hodel v. United States, 74 AFTR 2d 94-6001, 94-2 USTC par. 50,427 (M.D. (continued...) 14 Respondent concedes that petitioners incurred NOL's of $11,281 in 1989 and of $7,401 in 1990, and that the NOL's may be carried back to reduce income

ing the grounds upon which the Tax Court finds that there is an overpayment, or (C) Within the period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), in respect of any claim for refund filed within the applicable period specified in section 6511 and before the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency-- (i) which had not been disallowed before that date, (ii) which had been disallowed before that date and in respect of which a timely suit for refund could have been commenc