Bruce L. Brosi - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         
               such individual is “financially disabled”.  Sec.                       
               6511(h)(2), I.R.C., provides that an individual is                     
               “financially disabled” if “such individual is unable to                
               manage his financial affairs by reason of a medically                  
               determinable physical or mental impairment of the                      
               individual which can be expected to result in death or                 
               which has lasted or can be expected to last for a                      
               continuous period of not less than 12 months.”  Sec.                   
               6511(h)(2), I.R.C., requires that the physical or                      
               mental impairment be that of the individual taxpayer                   
               rather than another individual.  Accepting P’s factual                 
               allegations as true for purposes of this pending                       
               motion, sec. 6511(h), I.R.C., does not apply to suspend                
               the running of the periods of limitation.                              
                    Held, further,  Because P did not file his 1996                   
               income tax return prior to the notice of deficiency and                
               did not pay his 1996 income taxes within 2 years of the                
               mailing of the notice of deficiency, this Court lacks                  
               jurisdiction to award a refund or credit.  See                         
               Commissioner v. Lundy, 516 U.S. 235, 240 (1996).                       

               Bruce L. Brosi, pro se.                                                
               Frank A. Falvo, for respondent.                                        

                                       OPINION                                        
               RUWE, Judge:  This matter is before the Court on                       
          respondent’s motion for summary judgment filed pursuant to Rule             
          121.1  The only issue in this case is whether petitioner’s claim            
          for refund of an overpayment of his 1996 income tax is barred by            
          the applicable period of limitations.  In opposition to                     
          respondent’s motion, petitioner alleges facts that he argues                
          would have suspended the running of the period of limitations               


               1Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the            
          Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section                  
          references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended.                    




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011