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Unpublished Opinion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  

   

Суфиянова Татьяна
Суфиянова Татьяна

Российский налоговый портал

Ошибки риэлтора могут помешать получению имущественного вычета

При совершении сделок при покупке или продаже жилья советую быть внимательным при подписании договора купли-продажи. В противном случае покупатель не сможет вернуть НДФЛ в полном размере.

13
Легкая судьба электронных документов в суде

Бухгалтерские документы отражают важную информацию о хозяйственной деятельности организации.