- 10 -
refund claim, the defects respondent identifies do not
necessarily render the April 1996 letter ineffective as an
informal refund claim. It has long been recognized that a
writing which does not qualify as a formal refund claim
nevertheless may toll the period of limitations applicable to
refunds if (1) the writing is delivered to the Service before the
expiration of the applicable period of limitations, (2) the
writing in conjunction with its surrounding circumstances
adequately notifies the Service that the taxpayer is claiming a
refund and the basis therefor, and (3) either the Service waives
the defect by considering the refund claim on its merits or the
taxpayer subsequently perfects the informal refund claim by
filing a formal refund claim before the Service rejects the
informal refund claim. United States v. Kales, 314 U.S. 186, 194
(1941) (involving a protest letter); George Moore Ice Cream Co.
v. Rose, 289 U.S. 373 (1933) (involving a defective original
claim); Bemis Bros. Bag Co. v United States, 289 U.S. 28 (1933)
(involving a defective original claim); United States v. Factors’
& Fin. Co., 288 U.S. 89, 91 (1933) (involving a claim for refund
“of sweeping generality”); United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil
Co., 288 U.S. 62 (1933) (involving a claim rejected as too
general); United States v. Felt & Tarrant Manufacturing Co., 283
U.S. 269 (1931); Bonwit Teller & Co. v. United States, 283 U.S.
258 (1931) (involving a letter and executed waiver form); Am.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011