Bartek v. United States

Court of Claims

Bartek v. United States

230 Ct. Cl. 728, 49 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 808, 1982 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 96, 1982 WL 25170

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedFebruary 26, 1982

DocketNo. 70-82T

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 230 Ct. Cl. 728 (Bartek v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bartek v. United States, 230 Ct. Cl. 728, 49 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 808, 1982 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 96, 1982 WL 25170 (cc 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

per curiam:

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, disputes the Internal Revenue Service disallowance of a deduction for business use of the home on plaintiffs 1978 personal income tax return and demands judgment in the amount of $557.

Plaintiff's petition is deficient in two respects. First, it fails to allege overpayment of the taxes in dispute. Our [729]*729jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the disputed taxes have been paid. Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (1960). The second deficiency, which goes to the heart of plaintiffs case, is that he does not allege that he has filed a claim for refund with the Service and that the claim has been denied or the statutory waiting period has expired. We have no jurisdiction over a tax refund case unless these conditions are met. I.R.C. §7422(a).

it is therefore ordered that the petition is dismissed for failure to allege facts upon which this court might base its jurisdiction, in violation of Rule 35.

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

per curiam:

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, disputes the Internal Revenue Service disallowance of a deduction for business use of the home on plaintiffs 1978 personal income tax return and demands judgment in the amount of $557.

Plaintiff's petition is deficient in two respects. First, it fails to allege overpayment of the taxes in dispute. Our [729]*729jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the disputed taxes have been paid. Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (1960). The second deficiency, which goes to the heart of plaintiffs case, is that he does not allege that he has filed a claim for refund with the Service and that the claim has been denied or the statutory waiting period has expired. We have no jurisdiction over a tax refund case unless these conditions are met. I.R.C. §7422(a).

it is therefore ordered that the petition is dismissed for failure to allege facts upon which this court might base its jurisdiction, in violation of Rule 35.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 Ct. Cl. 728, 49 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 808, 1982 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 96, 1982 WL 25170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartek-v-united-states-cc-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack