Ameel v. United States, No. 19983.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | CELEBREZZE and COMBS, Circuit , and O'SULLIVAN, Senior Circuit |
| Citation | 426 F.2d 1270 |
| Parties | Francis H. AMEEL, Administrator d.b.n. Estate of Mary E. Ameel, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 19983. |
| Decision Date | 03 June 1970 |
426 F.2d 1270 (1970)
Francis H. AMEEL, Administrator d.b.n. Estate of Mary E. Ameel, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 19983.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 3, 1970.
J. Leon Katz, Detroit, Mich., for appellant.
Richard Farber, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., (Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, William A. Friedlander, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee. James H. Brickley, U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., of counsel.
Before CELEBREZZE and COMBS, Circuit Judges, and O'SULLIVAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granting the Government's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Appellant seeks refund of federal estate taxes alleged to have been erroneously assessed and collected against the estate. Section 7422 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. § 7422 (1964). The District Court granted Appellee's motion to dismiss the action on the grounds that the Appellant's claim for refund was not filed within the applicable statute of limitations, Sections 3511(a) and (b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. §§ 6511(a) and (b), and hence the Court was without jurisdiction over the subject matter. 26 U.S.C. § 7422 (1964), 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1964).
The relevant facts in the case were stipulated and are as follows:
The decedent, Mary E. Ameel, died on May 19, 1959. Thereafter Mary A. Peltier was appointed executrix of her estate. As executrix, Mrs. Peltier filed a timely estate tax return on behalf of the estate and remitted the tax payable as reported thereon with the filing of the return. Thereafter, the estate tax return was the subject of an audit by an Internal Revenue agent. The agent determined that certain of the assets in the estate had been undervalued on the estate tax return as filed. The agent recomputed the amount of estate tax based on the value of the assets as determined by him. The agent computed additional taxes due in the amount of $5,339.80, and presented this computation to Mrs. Peltier. Mrs. Peltier agreed with the agent that the additional taxes were due, signed a Treasury Form 890, which had been prepared by the Internal Revenue agent and, after the amount of additional interest from the date the return was due to February 7, 1963, had been computed, presented the Internal Revenue agent with a check for the total amount of taxes and interest due. At the time that she remitted the check to the agent, Mrs. Peltier did not intend to contest the correctness of the agent's determination. On receipt of the check, the Internal Revenue agent prepared a Treasury Form 1962. On the Form 1962, the agent instructed that the amount paid be immediately assessed.1 Thereafter the check was processed and the additional taxes plus interest which had been owed by the estate of Mary Ameel were listed on the next assessment roll, which was signed February 21, 1963.
Sometime thereafter, Mary Peltier's brother, Francis H. Ameel, Appellant herein, formed the opinion that the assets had been correctly valued on the estate tax return as originally filed. Mr. Ameel was unable to persuade his sister to file a claim for refund so it was necessary for him to be appointed administrator of the estate before the claim for refund could be filed. On February 9, 1965, Mary Peltier was discharged as executrix of the estate and taxpayer was appointed administrator de bonis non.
These facts give rise to a single issue: whether the refund claim filed by Appellant on February 9, 1965 was timely under the applicable sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. 26 U.S.C. §§ 6511(a) and (b), 7422 (1964), which provide:
Civil actions for refund of taxes paid shall not
"be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected * * until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed."
A claim for refund must comport with the requirements of Section 6511(a) and (b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to be considered as "duly filed." Those sections, in part, state:
"(a) Period of Limitation on Filing Claim. — Claim for credit or refund of an overpayment of any tax imposed by this title in respect of which tax the taxpayer is required to file a return shall be filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the return was filed or 2 years from the time the tax was paid, whichever of such periods expires the later, * * *.
"(b) Limitation on Allowance of Credits and Refunds. (1) Filing of claim within prescribed period. — No credit or refund shall be allowed or made after the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed in subsection(a) for the filing of a claim for credit or refund, unless a claim for credit or refund is filed by the taxpayer within such period." 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a) and (b) (1964).
Applying these statutory commands to the stipulated facts, there is no question that the claim for refund (February 9, 1965) was filed more than three years after the return (August, 1960) was filed. The only issue which remains is whether the claim for refund was filed within "2 years from the time the tax was paid." The Government contends that the date of payment should be measured from February 7, 1963 (the date of remittance and of the filing of Form 1962), and that the aforequoted statutes bar any civil action for refund brought after February 7, 1965. Hence, the instant claim filed on February 9, 1965 would be untimely. On the other hand, the Appellant contends that the date of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Principal Life Ins. Co. v. The United States, 07-0006T
...995 F.2d at 208; Ewing v. United States, 914 F.2d 499, 504 (4th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 (1991); Ameel v. United States, 426 F.2d 1270, 1274 (6th Cir. 1970); Fortugno v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 353 F.2d 429, 435 (3d Cir. 1965); Charles Leich, 329 F.2d at 652. Yet another l......
-
Nagle v. Acton-Boxborough Regional School Dist., 08-2374.
...timely brought. Such limitations do not require prejudice and are often described as "disfavored defense[s]." Ameel v. United States, 426 F.2d 1270, 1274 (6th Cir.1970). Nagle's claim is not barred by a statute of limitations: she simply has no right to FMLA leave under the statute because ......
-
Girard Trust Bank v. United States, 45-78.
...were lawfully redeemed. Citing Rosenman v. United States, 323 U.S. 658, 65 S.Ct. 536, 89 L.Ed. 535 (1945), and Ameel v. United States, 426 F.2d 1270 (6th Cir. 1970), plaintiffs argue that once the bonds were redeemed the par value of the bonds was 602 F.2d 942 applied in payment of the taxe......
-
David v. U.S., Civil Action No. 96-30067-MAP.
...15, 1990. See 26 U.S.C. § 6513(b)(1); see also § 301.6513-1(b). 3. Plaintiff also cites a Sixth Circuit case, Ameel v. United States, 426 F.2d 1270, 1273 (6th Cir. 1970), which summarized Rosenman and its progeny. Ameel, however, specifically disagreed with Thomas and Dubuque and concluded ......