Bhattacharyya v. Internal Revenue Commissioner
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Bidyut and Diana Bhattacharyya appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction their action seeking a refund for overpayment of federal income taxes and damages for alleged wrongful acts by the Internal Revenue Service. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Imperial Plan, Inc. v. United States, 95 F.3d 25, 26 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Bhattacharyyas’ action claiming a refund for overpayment of taxes, because it was filed more than three years after the taxes were withheld from their wages. See 26 U.S.C. § 6511(b)(2)(A) (requiring a claim for refund of overpaid taxes to be filed within three years of the time the taxes were paid); see also 26 U.S.C. § 6513(b)(1) (stating that taxes deducted and withheld are deemed paid on April 15 following the close of the tax year); Zeier v. IRS, 80 F.3d 1360, 1364 (9th Cir.1996) (stating that section 6511(b)(2)(A) is jurisdictional).
The Bhattacharyyas’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
180 F. App'x 763 (Bhattacharyya v. Internal Revenue Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.