In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 19-1112T (Filed: August 9, 2021) FOR PUBLICATION *************************************** GANNON MCCAFFERY and * TAYLOR MCCAFFERY, * * Plaintiffs, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * * *************************************** Douglas L. Salzer, Ajubita Leftwich & Salzer LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiffs. Karen Elisabeth Servidea, Tax Division, Court of Federal Claims Section, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Defendant. With her on briefs were David A. Hubbert, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division, Richard E. Zuckerman, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, David I. Pincus, Chief, Court of Federal Claims Section, and Mary M. Abate, Assistant Chief, Court of Federal Claims Section, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Gannon and Taylor McCaffery (“Plaintiffs” or “the McCafferys”) have sued the United States for a refund of allegedly overpaid federal income tax. Compl. ¶¶ 1–3 (ECF 1). The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 1 The issue presented is whether Plaintiffs timely submitted a claim for overpayment to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as they were required to do before filing suit. I hold that they did not. This Court therefore GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES the complaint. BACKGROUND Those who overpay federal income taxes may apply to the IRS for a tax refund. A claim for a refund generally must be filed by the taxpayer “within 3 years from the 1 Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (ECF 11); see also Pls.’ Opp. (ECF 12); Def.’s Reply (ECF 15). The parties submitted supplemental briefs on this Court’s request. See Pls.’ Supp. Br. (ECF 20); Def.’s Supp. Br. (ECF 21); see also Order (ECF 18). time the return was filed[.]” I.R.C. § 6511(a). Untimely claims must be denied. I.R.C. § 6511(b)(1). Timely filing can be accomplished in one of two ways: by delivering the claim to the IRS within the deadline, see Doyle v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 314, 320 (2009); Buttke v. United States, 13 Cl. Ct. 191, 192 (1987), or by mailing in accordance with the “deemed delivery” rule. The deemed delivery rule provides that when a document is delivered to the IRS by United States mail after an Internal Revenue Code deadline, “the date of the United States postmark stamped on the cover in which such [document] is mailed shall be deemed to be the date of delivery,” given the postmark’s date is on or before the deadline and the mailing was otherwise proper. I.R.C. § 7502(a). 2 Three other types of documentation of mailed documents — non-United States Postal Service postmarks, mail registration, and markings made by private delivery services — may be treated as equivalent to postmarks. I.R.C. § 7502(b), (c), (f). Treasury regulations set out additional requirements for using a postmark to satisfy the deemed delivery rule. The regulations establish that the taxpayer bears the risk if the postmark does not qualify: If the postmark does not bear a date on or before the last date, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals