Логин или email Регистрация Пароль Я забыл пароль


Войти при помощи:

Судебные дела / Зарубежная практика  / RICHARD N. WADLINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 06-5015, Decided: April 4, 2006

RICHARD N. WADLINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 06-5015, Decided: April 4, 2006

24.06.2008  

RICHARD N. WADLINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

06-5015

Decided: April 4, 2006

Unpublished Opinion

NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition

is not citable as precedent. It is a public record.

Before SCHALL, LINN, and DYK, Circuit Judges .

PER CURIAM.

Richard N. Wadlington ("Wadlington") appeals the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims Case No. 05-CV-578 (Sept. 28, 2005). The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Wadlington's complaint for lack of jurisdiction because his request for a tax refund was untimely and the statute of limitations set forth in 26 U.S.C. ╖ 6511 is not subject to equitable tolling. We affirm .

While Wadlington concedes that his request for the tax refund was untimely, he contends that we should toll the statute of limitations set forth in ╖ 6511. Wadlington argues that he did not have an opportunity to file a timely refund because he was not aware before the expiration of the statutory time period that he was entitled to the refund. However, controlling precedent on this issue is clear √ it is of no consequence that the "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." Lovett v. United States , 81 F.3d 143, 145 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. Dalm , 494 U.S. 596, 609 n.7 (1990)). Further, in United States v. Brockamp , 519 U.S. 347 (1997), the Supreme Court unambiguously held that the statute of limitations set forth in ╖ 6511 is not subject to equitable tolling. Thus, we must reject Wadlington's argument for equitable tolling and accordingly affirm the decision of the Court of Federal Claims.

Разместить:

Вы также можете   зарегистрироваться  и/или  авторизоваться  

   

Легкая судьба электронных документов в суде

Бухгалтерские документы отражают важную информацию о хозяйственной деятельности организации.

Суфиянова Татьяна
Суфиянова Татьяна

Российский налоговый портал

Как открыть для себя «Личный кабинет налогоплательщика»?

Если у вас нет еще доступа в ваш «Личный кабинет», то советую сделать