Michael R. and Sheila Olsen - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         
          With the United States Tax Court: JUL 30 2001".                             
               On or about June 13, 2001, the United States moved to                  
          dismiss petitioners’ refund action for lack of jurisdiction.  On            
          June 22, 2001, an Order and Findings and Recommendation was filed           
          by a United States magistrate judge recommending that                       
          petitioners’ refund action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.           
          The Order and Findings and Recommendation concluded that the                
          District Court lacked jurisdiction on the ground that petitioners           
          could not be deemed to have paid the taxes that were the subject            
          of their refund claim inasmuch as “approval of a credit from                
          overpayment by the Internal Revenue Service is a prerequisite to            
          filing suit for a refund under section 7422".  See 26 U.S.C. sec.           
          7422(d) (1994).  On January 31, 2002, the District Court filed an           
          Order dismissing petitioners’ refund action for lack of                     
          jurisdiction based on the prior Order and Findings and                      
          Recommendation of the magistrate judge.                                     
               On February 28, 2002, petitioners filed a petition for                 
          redetermination with this Court contesting the notice of                    
          deficiency dated May 1, 2001.  The envelope in which the petition           
          was mailed to the Court bears a U.S. Postal Service postmark date           
          of February 12, 2002, and postmark place of Sacramento,                     
          California.                                                                 
               As indicated, respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack            
          of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not timely              






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011