Cite as: 516 U. S. 235 (1996)
Opinion of the Court
suit filed in district court or the Court of Federal Claims. Even if we were inclined to depart from the plain language of the statute, we would find neither of these arguments persuasive.
Lundy correctly argues that Congress intended § 6512(b) (3)(B) to permit taxpayers to seek a refund in Tax Court in circumstances in which they might otherwise be barred from filing an administrative claim for refund with the IRS. This is in fact the way § 6512(b)(3)(B) operates in a large number of cases. See supra, at 244-245. But that does not mean that Congress intended that § 6512(b)(3)(B) would always preserve taxpayers' ability to seek a refund. Indeed, it is apparent from the face of the statute that Congress also intended § 6512(b)(3)(B) to act sometimes as a bar to recovery. To this end, the section incorporates both the 2-year and the 3-year look-back periods from § 6511(b)(2), and we must assume (contrary to Lundy's reading, which provides a uniform 3-year period, see supra, at 248-249) that Congress intended for both those look-back periods to have some effect. Cf. Badaracco, 464 U. S., at 405 (Stevens, J., dissenting) ("Whatever the correct standard for construing a statute of limitations . . . surely the presumption ought to be that some limitations period is applicable"). (Emphasis deleted.)
Lundy also suggests that our interpretation of the statute creates a disparity between the limitations period that applies in Tax Court and the periods that apply in refund suits filed in district court or the Court of Federal Claims. In this regard, Lundy argues that the claim for refund he filed with his tax return on December 28 would have been timely for purposes of district court litigation because it was filed "within 3 years from the time the return was filed," § 6511(b)(1) (incorporating by reference § 6511(a)); see also Rev. Rul. 76-511, 1976-2 Cum. Bull. 428, and within the 3-year look-back period that would apply under § 6511(b)(2)(A). Petitioner disagrees that there is any disparity, arguing that Lundy's interpretation of the statute is wrong and that
251
Page: Index Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007