6
and, accordingly, conclude that petitioners did not file Federal
income tax returns for 1989, 1990, and 1991.
B. Whether Petitioners Filed Refund Claims
Generally, a refund claim must be verified under penalty of
perjury in order to be valid. Secs. 6061, 6065; sec. 301.6402-
2(b), Proc. & Admin. Regs. It is well established, however, that
an informal claim (i.e., one that contains formal defects) will
suffice as long as it requests a refund and fairly advises
respondent of the nature of the taxpayer's claim. United States
v. Kales, 314 U.S. 186 (1941); see Lundy v. Commissioner, 516
U.S. 235 (1996). There are no bright line rules as to what
constitutes an informal claim. New England Elec. Sys. v. United
States, 32 Fed. Cl. 36 (1995). Rather, each case must be decided
on its own particular set of facts. Id. The relevant question
is whether respondent knew or should have known that a refund
claim was being made. Id.; see Angelus Milling Co. v. United
States, 325 U.S. 293, 297 (1945) (stating that the issue is
whether respondent had notice, sufficient to focus attention on
the merits of petitioner's claim).
Over a 3-month period, Agent McClaughlin reviewed the
photocopied returns, along with additional information that
petitioners provided pursuant Agent McClaughlin's requests. The
photocopied returns contained requests for respondent to credit
petitioners' overpayments to subsequent years (i.e., requests for
refunds) and adequately apprised respondent that petitioners
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011