§6532 — Periods of limitation on suits

46 cases·8 followed·4 distinguished·1 questioned·1 overruled·32 cited17% support

(a)Suits by taxpayers for refund
(1)General rule

No suit or proceeding under section 7422(a) for the recovery of any internal revenue tax, penalty, or other sum, shall be begun before the expiration of 6 months from the date of filing the claim required under such section unless the Secretary renders a decision thereon within that time, nor after the expiration of 2 years from the date of mailing by certified mail or registered mail by the Secretary to the taxpayer of a notice of the disallowance of the part of the claim to which the suit or proceeding relates.

(2)Extension of time

The 2-year period prescribed in paragraph (1) shall be extended for such period as may be agreed upon in writing between the taxpayer and the Secretary.

(3)Waiver of notice of disallowance

If any person files a written waiver of the requirement that he be mailed a notice of disallowance, the 2-year period prescribed in paragraph (1) shall begin on the date such waiver is filed.

(4)Reconsideration after mailing of notice

Any consideration, reconsideration, or action by the Secretary with respect to such claim following the mailing of a notice by certified mail or registered mail of disallowance shall not operate to extend the period within which suit may be begun.

(5)Cross reference

For substitution of 120-day period for the 6-month period contained in paragraph (1) in a title 11 case, see section 505(a)(2) of title 11 of the United States Code.

(b)Suits by United States for recovery of erroneous refunds

Recovery of an erroneous refund by suit under section 7405 shall be allowed only if such suit is begun within 2 years after the making of such refund, except that such suit may be brought at any time within 5 years from the making of the refund if it appears that any part of the refund was induced by fraud or misrepresentation of a material fact.

(c)Suits by persons other than taxpayers
(1)General rule

Except as provided by paragraph (2), no suit or proceeding under section 7426 shall be begun after the expiration of 2 years from the date of the levy or agreement giving rise to such action.

(2)Period when claim is filed

If a request is made for the return of property described in section 6343(b), the 2-year period prescribed in paragraph (1) shall be extended for a period of 12 months from the date of filing of such request or for a period of 6 months from the date of mailing by registered or certified mail by the Secretary to the person making such request of a notice of disallowance of the part of the request to which the action relates, whichever is shorter.

  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6532-1 Periods of limitation on suits by taxpayers
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6532-1(a) §301.6532-1(a)
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6532-1(b) The 2-year period described in paragraph (a) of this section may be extended if an agreement to extend the running of the period of limitations is executed.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6532-1(c) The taxpayer may sign a waiver of the requirement that he be mailed a notice of disallowance.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6532-1(d) Any consideration, reconsideration, or other action with respect to a claim after the mailing by registered mail prior to September 3, 1958, or by either registered or certified mail on or after September 3, 1958, of a notice of disallowance or after the execution of a waiver referred to in paragraph (c) of this section, shall not extend the period for bringing suit or other proceeding under section 7422(a).
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6532-2 Periods of limitation on suits by the United States
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6532-3 Periods of limitation on suits by persons other than taxpayers
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6532-3(a) General rule.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6532-3(b) Period when claim is filed.
  • Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6532-3(c) Examples.

46 Citing Cases

QUEST. Kevin Patrick Brady, Petitioner 136 T.C. No. 19 · 2011

We express no opinion on the correctness of this determination.

Coggin notices of disallowance pursuant to section 6532(a), disallowing the claims on the separate returns.

Keith Lee Wilson, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 1999-327 · 1999

ch 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 before that date and within the period specified in section 6532. 7 Although sec. 1282(a) of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Pub. L. 105-34, 111 Stat. 788, 1037, amended sec. 6512(b)(3) in response to the result in Commissioner v. Lundy, 516 U.S. 235 (1996), this amendment is inapplicable to the inst

Dai Ho & Young H. Cho, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 1998-363 · 1998

With this background, we return to petitioners' contention that the Court should impose a 6-month deadline upon respondent (similar to the 6-month rule imposed under section 6532 with respect to claims for refund) within which respondent is obliged to either grant or deny a taxpayer's request for abatement of 3 Sec.

Diane C. Lincir, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2007-86 · 2007

- 14 - (C) Limitation on Tax Court jurisdiction.--If a suit for refund is begun by either individual.filing the joint return pursuant to section 6532-- (i) the Tax Court shall lose jurisdiction of the individual's action under this section to whatever extent jurisdiction is acquired by the district court or the United States Court of Federal Claims over the taxable years that are the subject of the suit for refund; and (ii) the court acquiring jurisdiction shall have jurisdiction ov

Paul V. Applegarth, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2024-107 · 2024

ich had been disallowed before that date and in respect of which 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 before that date and within the period specified in section 6532. In a case described in subparagraph (B) where the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency is during the third year after the due date (with extension) for filing the return of tax and no return was filed before such date, the app

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.

Section 6015(e) (3) provides: (3) Limitation on Tax Court jurisdiction.--If a suit for refund is begun by either individual filing the joint return pursuant to -section 6532-- (A) the Tax Court shall lose jurisdiction of the individual's action under this section to whatever extent jurisdiction is acquired by the.

Patrick J. McGowan, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2008-125 · 2008

of Limitations.-- (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), if a hearing is requested under subsection (a)(3)(B), the levy actions which are the subject of the requested hearing and the running of any period of limitations under section 6502 (relating to collection after assessment), section 6531 (relating to criminal prosecutions), or section 6532 (relating to other suits) shall be suspended for the period during which such hearing, and appeals therein, are pending.

2003) (holding that the submission of a duplicative second administrative claim for refund under section 6532 did not start the 2-year limitations period anew) .

Norman P. Schneller, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2008-196 · 2008

Limitations .-- (1) In general .-- Except as provided in paragraph (2), if a hearing is requested under subsection (a)(3)(B), the levy actions which are the subject of the requested hearing and the running of any period of limitations under section 6502 (relating to collection after assessment), section 6531 (relating to criminal prosecutions), or section 6532 (relating to other suits) shall be suspended for the period during which such hearing, and appeals therein, are pending .

Barnes v. Commissioner 130 T.C. 248 · 2008

2003) (holding that the submission of a duplicative second administrative claim for refund under section 6532 did not start the 2-year limitations period anew).

Peter D. Adkison, Petitioner 129 T.C. No. 13 · 2007

In sum, section 6230(c)(5)(A) and (B) provides that the spouse of a partner may file a claim for relief from a tax liability attributable to an adjustment to a partnership item within H 6 months after the Commissioner has mailed to the spouse a notice of computational adjustment .

Adkison v. Commissioner 129 T.C. 97 · 2007

In connection with these provisions, section 6230(c)(5)(C) provides that, if the Commissioner disallows the spouse’s claim for relief under section 6015, the spouse may bring a refund suit within the period specified in section 6230(c)(3) (which in turn refers to section 6532 relating to periods of limitations on refund suits).

Anthony & Lena C. Andre, Petitioner 127 T.C. No. 4 · 2006

--once he receives a request for a CDP hearing--to stop trying to levy, to start tolling the period of limitations for collection and any criminal prosecution, as well as to toll the period for a taxpayer to file a refund or wrongful levy suit under section 6532. The IRS keeps track of taxpayers by tax year, and it organizes its attempts at collection by tax year. When a taxpayer gets a NFTL or NIL for a particular tax year, the proposed collection action is noted in the file for that tax year a

Joyce E. Beery, Petitioner 122 T.C. No. 9 · 2004

ted under subsection (a)(3)(B), the levy actions which are the subject of the requested hearing and the running of any period of limitations under sec. 6502 (relating to collection after assessment), sec. 6531 (relating to criminal prosecutions), or sec. 6532 (relating to other suits) shall be suspended for the period during which such hearing, and appeals therein, are pending. In no event shall any such period expire before the 90th day after the day on which there is a final determination in s

Michael Craig, Petitioner 119 T.C. No. 15 · 2002

* * * * * (e) Suspension of Collections and Statute of Limitations.-- (1) In general.--* * * if a hearing is requested * * *, the levy actions which are the subject of the requested hearing and the running of any period of limitations under section 6502 (relating to collection after assessment), section 6531 (relating to criminal prosecutions), or section 6532 (relating to the suits) shall be suspended for the period during which such hearing, and appeals therein, are pending.

Roxie Lee Jackson, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2002-44 · 2002

ch 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 before that date and within the period specified in section 6532. No portion of either overpayment was paid within the period described in section 6512(b)(3)(A) or (B). In this case, the overpayments in question were made before the date the notices of deficiency were mailed and outside the periods wh

Except as provided in paragraph (2), if a hearing is requested under subsection (a)(3)(B), the levy actions which are the subject of the requested hearing and the running of any period of limitations under section 6502 (relating to collection after assessment), section 6531 (relating to criminal prosecutions), or section 6532 (relating to other suits) shall be suspended for the period during which such hearing, and appeals therein, are pending.

Evelyn N. Williams, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 1999-305 · 1999

h 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 before that date and within the period specified in section 6532. These provisions prevent the allowance of any credit or refund paid during a period beyond the periods prescribed by section 6512(b)(3). See Sutherland v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-301. Section 6511(a) provides generally that a claim

Ronald W. Stewart, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 1999-121 · 1999

ch 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 before that date and within the period specified in section 6532. - 6 - date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency would be filed within that .3-year period, then the look-back period is also three years and the Tax Court has . jurisdiction to award a refund of any taxes paid within three years p

Lee R. Stevens, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 1996-250 · 1996

ch 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 before that date and within the period specified in section 6532. -11- v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 374, 378-379 (1993); Berry v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 339, 344-345 (1991); Little v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-1; Khinda v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-617; Courtney v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-50

Becton Dickinson And Company v. Reinhard A. Wolckenhauer 215 F.3d 340 · Cir.
Woody v. Commissioner 95 T.C. 193 · 1990
Jennifer Zuch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Cir.
Brady v. Commissioner 136 T.C. 422 · 2011
In Re: Roger Pransky · Cir.
Edward Kaffenberger v. United States · Cir.
Edward J. Kaffenberger Cora S. Kaffenberger v. United States 314 F.3d 944 · Cir.
In Re: Roger Pransky, Debtor Internal Revenue Service v. Roger Pransky 318 F.3d 536 · Cir.
United States v. Domino Sugar Corporation, Tate & Lyle North American Sugars Inc. 349 F.3d 84 · Cir.
Andre v. Commissioner 127 T.C. 68 · 2006
Beery v. Commissioner 122 T.C. 184 · 2004
Craig v. Commissioner 119 T.C. 252 · 2002
Lunsford v. Commissioner 117 T.C. 159 · 2001
Galuska v. Commissioner 98 T.C. 661 · 1992
Harris v. Commissioner 99 T.C. 121 · 1992
Berry v. Commissioner 97 T.C. 339 · 1991
Hollie v. Commissioner 73 T.C. 1198 · 1980
White v. Commissioner 72 T.C. 1126 · 1979
Hosking v. Commissioner 62 T.C. 635 · 1974
Scheafnocker v. Commissioner 642 F.3d 428 · Cir.
Univ Pgh v. United States · Cir.
United States v. Laura Giaimo 854 F.3d 483 · Cir.
John Dierlam v. Donald Trump, President 977 F.3d 471 · Cir.
United States v. Charles Weiss 52 F.4th 546 · Cir.