TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Reyes

Ruperta Reyes

Reyes, 652 F.2d 70 (Ct. Cl. 1981)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
United States Court of Claims · Federal Specialty Courts
Decided
March 13, 1981
Docket
No. 542-80T
Judges
Davis, Kashiwa, Smith
Citations
652 F.2d 70227 Ct. Cl. 5861981 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 145

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Plaintiff, pro se, filed a petition in this court on October 6, 1980, for refund of income tax for 1977 and interest thereon totaling $333.53, which amount she paid on May 12, 1980. Plaintiff contends that she is a victim of possible discrimination for failure of the Internal Revenue Service to allow her claims for dependency exemptions for her parents on a head-of-household basis. Defendant moves to dismiss the *587 petition on the ground that plaintiff has not met the jurisdictional requirement of filing with the Internal Revenue Service an administrative claim for refund pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 7422, which claim it appears she is entitled to file on or before May 12, 1982, that being within the 2-year period after payment provided for in I.R.C.§ 6511(a).

The provisions of I.R.C. § 7422(a) clearly support defendant:

Ño suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary or his delegate, according to the provisions of law in that regard, and the regulations of the Secretary established in pursuance thereof.

Unless such a claim is filed, we have no jurisdiction. See also Treas. Reg. § 301.6402-2 .

it is therefore ordered, without hearing oral argument, that defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted and the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1983: 219832026peak 1983 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Walsh v. United States3 Cl. Ct. 539 (Ct. Cl. 1983)
  2. Lyle v. United States2 Cl. Ct. 250 (Ct. Cl. 1983)

Most recent

  1. Walsh v. United States3 Cl. Ct. 539 (Ct. Cl. 1983)
  2. Lyle v. United States2 Cl. Ct. 250 (Ct. Cl. 1983)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list