- 41 -
germane to the first claim"); United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil
Co., 288 U.S. 62, 72 (1933); United States v. Felt & Tarrant
Manufacturing Co., 283 U.S. 269, 272-273 (1931); In re Ryan, 64
F.3d 1516, 1520-1521 (11th Cir. 1995); United States v. Forma, 42
F.3d at 767 n.13; American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. v.
United States, 162 Ct. Cl. 106, 318 F.2d 915, 920-922 (1963);
secs. 301.6402-2, 301.6402-3, Proced. & Admin. Regs. Under the
variance doctrine, taxpayers are obliged in their refund claims
to identify the assets at issue and to state why they were
treated improperly. It is not enough to state a related claim.
The policy ground for not allowing time-barred claims that
impermissibly vary from timely claims is that the Commissioner
lacks the time and resources to perform extensive investigations
into the precise reasons and facts supporting every taxpayer’s
claim for refund. Charter Co. v. United States, 971 F.2d 1576,
1579-1580 (11th Cir. 1992); cf. Angelus Milling Co. v.
Commissioner, 325 U.S. 293, 297-298 (1945).
Whether the grounds for the Administration Trust’s second
refund claim of September 10, 1990, vary impermissibly from the
grounds for the amended return filed on November 16, 1987, need
not detain us--although I incline to believe they do so vary.
Respondent's acceptance and allowance of the Administration
Trust's 1987 claim provides sufficient basis for the conclusion
that its 1990 refund claim is time-barred. See, e.g., Union
Pacific R.R. Co. v. United States, 182 Ct. Cl. 103, 389 F.2d 437,
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011