Llwellyn Greene-Thapedi - Page 34

                                       - 34 -                                         
          refund,4 or res judicata5 may bar their claim.  Flora v.                    


               4  Notably, sec. 6330(e)(1) does not provide for the                   
          suspension of the period of limitations for seeking a claim for             
          credit or refund pursuant to sec. 6511.                                     
               The very purpose of statutes of limitations in the tax                 
               context is to bar the assertion of a refund claim after                
               a certain period of time has passed, without regard to                 
               whether the claim would otherwise be meritorious.  That                
               a taxpayer does not learn until after the limitations                  
               period has run that a tax was paid in error, and that                  
               he or she has a ground upon which to claim a refund,                   
               does not operate to lift the statutory bar.  [United                   
               States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 609 n.7 (1990).]                         
          It is very likely that after the time elapsed in the sec. 6330              
          proceedings most taxpayers’ refund claims would be barred by the            
          period of limitations contained in sec. 6511 or severely limited            
          or eliminated by the look-back rules of sec. 6511(b).  This is so           
          because if taxpayers cannot obtain refunds as an outgrowth of a             
          sec. 6330 proceeding, as respondent suggests, no action taken by            
          a taxpayer as part of the sec. 6330 proceedings can be a claim              
          for refund pursuant to sec. 6511.  See Commissioner v. Lundy, 516           
          U.S. 235, 249-250 (1996); Jackson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.               
          2002-44; sec. 301.6402-2(b)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.                      
               5  The Supreme Court, in Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S.              
          591, 599 (1948), stated:                                                    
               Income taxes are levied on an annual basis.  Each year                 
               is the origin of a new liability and of a separate                     
               cause of action.  Thus if a claim of liability or non-                 
               liability relating to a particular tax year is                         
               litigated, a judgment on the merits is res judicata as                 
               to any subsequent proceeding involving the same claim                  
               and the same tax year. * * *                                           
          Accordingly, because taxpayers can claim that they overpaid their           
          taxes (“paid more than was owed”) in a sec. 6330 case, majority             
          op. p. 18 note 19, the doctrine of res judicata might bar                   
          taxpayers from initiating a refund suit in U.S. District Court or           
          the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  See Estate of Baumgardner v.             
          Commissioner, supra at 452; Newstat v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.             
          2004-208 (res judicata applied to the overpayment claim in the              
          section 6330 case because it involved “the same cause of action”            
                                                             (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011