Ardell H. Nelson and Mary M. Nelson v. United States

757 F.2d 1537, 55 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1473, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29136
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 22, 1985
Docket84-1661
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 757 F.2d 1537 (Ardell H. Nelson and Mary M. Nelson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ardell H. Nelson and Mary M. Nelson v. United States, 757 F.2d 1537, 55 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1473, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29136 (5th Cir. 1985).

Opinion

*1538 TATE, Circuit Judge:

The taxpayers, husband and wife, appeal from the dismissal of their claim for a federal income tax refund. 1 The district court held that the taxpayers’ claim for refund of overpayment of taxes for the 1974 tax year — which was sought on the basis of a carryback of a net operating loss for the 1977 tax year — was not timely. The court so held (as had the Commissioner) because the administrative claim for refund, filed June 5, 1981, was made later than “the 15th day of the 40th month [i.e., by April 15, 1981] ... following the end of the taxable year [i.e., 1977] of the net operating loss which results in such carryback,” as then 2 required by Section 6511(d)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code (“I.R.C.”) of 1954, 26 U.S.C. § 6511(d)(2)(A) (1969). We affirm.

Context Facts

We briefly recapitulate the facts (using rounded figures), in the light of which is made the taxpayers’ contention of error:

On June 15, 1978, the taxpayers filed their return for the 1977 tax year, which showed a net operating loss of some $213,-000. Under provisions of the I.R.C., they were entitled by timely claim to carry this loss back to their 1974 tax year. Accordingly, on June 5, 1981 (almost two months too late, according to the district court’s holding) they filed their formal claim for a refund for more than $55,000 that had been paid in taxes for the 1974 taxable year. This refund was administratively denied as time-barred, resulting in this tax-refund suit.

The taxpayers’ 1974 tax return was filed April 15, 1975, showing tax liability in excess of $50,000, paid on or before the filing date. The Internal Revenue Service in 1980 issued a notice of deficiency for the 1974 tax year in an amount slightly in excess of $1,000. The taxpayers paid this amount on June 1, 1981. They then on June 5, 1981, as earlier noted, filed their claim for refund of 1974 taxes based on the carryback of their 1977 operating loss.

By their claim, the taxpayers sought refund of more than $55,000 of the taxes paid for the 1974 tax year, which of course included the $1,000 assessed deficiency paid June 1, 1981. The Internal Revenue Service conceded that the refund sought of the $1,000 was timely, as filed within two years of the payment made, although refund was limited to the amount of such payment. See I.R.C. § 6511(b)(2)(B), 26 U.S.C. § 6511(b)(2)(B). However, for the reasons earlier noted, the taxpayers’ refund claim for the additional $54,000 was rejected as time-barred by both administrator and district court.

Refunds based on a net operating loss carryback

The taxpayers contend that their refund claim filed June 5, 1981 was timely not only as to the $1,000 paid four days earlier but also as to the entire $55,000 refund of 1974 taxes sought on the basis of the carryback to that tax year of their net operating loss sustained in the 1977 tax year. They point out that a single claim for refund was based upon that one carryback’s effect upon their total 1974 tax liability, and they argue that the I.R.C. does not require bifurcation into two separate claims, with two different time-limitations periods, of their single claim for refund based upon the single tax-affecting net operating loss carryback.

The taxpayers’ contention is based upon their construction of I.R.C. § 6511. This enactment provides for time-limitations on filing administrative claims for refund. No reported decision has addressed the present *1539 issue. Relevant to this issue, the statutory framework thereby provided is as follows:

Section 6511(a) 3 provides the general rule for when a refund claim must be filed: within three years from the time the return was filed or within two years from the time the tax was paid, whichever expires later. Section 6511(b)(1) 4 further provides that no refund is allowed unless the taxpayer files his claim within the time period set out in 6511(a). Section 6511(b)(2)(B) 5 states that if the refund claim is not filed within the three-year period, the refund allowed is limited to the portion of the tax paid during the two years immediately preceding the filing of the claim.

However, a special rule for refunds based upon a net operating loss carryback is provided by Section 6511(d)(2)(A). 6 As the statute read at the time applicable to the present refund claim (see note 2 supra ), it required that such a claim be filed by the 15th day of the 40th month following the end of the tax year in which the net operating loss was incurred. As so applied, the present refund claim, filed (June 5) more than six weeks after the 40-month date (April 15), was not timely.

The taxpayers contend, however, that the statute so construed overlooks the provision of § 6511(d)(2)(A) (see note 6 supra) that “[i]n the case of such a claim, the amount of the credit or refund may exceed the portion of the tax paid within the period provided in subsection (b)(2) or (c) ... to the extent of the amount of the overpayment attributable to such carryback.” Section 6511(d)(2)(A) (emphasis added). The taxpayers read the meaning of this section as providing that in the event of “such a claim” (which they equate as referring to any timely claim for refund based upon a net operating loss carryback), a taxpayer is entitled to recover the full extent of the amount attributable to the carryback. Thus, because it is conceded that the refund claim was timely as to the $1,000 (since brought within two years of its payment), by virtue of this timely filed claim for refund the taxpayers claim that they are entitled to recover the full “amount of the overpayment attributable to such carry-back.” Id.

Despite the taxpayers’ skillful arguments, we are unable to agree with this construction. We think the plain meaning of the provision is instead that, when a net-operating-loss refund sought within the provisions and time limitation of Section 6511(d)(2)(A), then — as to “such a claim’.’— the limitations on the amount of recovery otherwise provided by Section 6511(b)(2) and (c) do not apply. 7 The statutory provision simply means that for a claim for refund of taxes paid for a previous year *1540 (here, 1974) based on a net operating loss incurred during a subsequent tax year (here, 1977), the normal time limitations provided by Section 6511(b) and (c) — which ordinarily would time-bar recovery at this late date — would not apply to “such a claim”; i.e.,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Brashear v. United States
138 F. Supp. 2d 786 (N.D. Texas, 2001)
Dresser Industries, Inc. v. United States
73 F. Supp. 2d 682 (N.D. Texas, 1999)
Glenwood Cooperative, Inc. v. United States
73 F.3d 344 (Federal Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
757 F.2d 1537, 55 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1473, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ardell-h-nelson-and-mary-m-nelson-v-united-states-ca5-1985.