                                           KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, PETITIONER v. COMMISSIONER                                           OF
                                                     INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT
                                                        Docket No. 11146–09L.                     Filed April 28, 2011.

                                                 In this sec. 6330, I.R.C., CDP case, R determined to collect
                                               P’s unpaid tax for 2005 by levy. P claims that he should be
                                               given credit for overpayments that he made for prior tax years
                                               that would extinguish his 2005 liability. P had previously filed
                                               claims for refund for the prior years that R disallowed, and
                                               P failed to file suit for refund or credit within the 2-year
                                               period of limitations prescribed by sec. 6532, I.R.C. Held:
                                               Because P did not file suit within the 2-year period prescribed
                                               in sec. 6532, I.R.C., sec. 6514, I.R.C., bars any credit for the

                                      422




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   14:53 May 30, 2013   Jkt 372897    PO 20009   Frm 00001   Fmt 2847   Sfmt 2847   V:\FILES\BRADY.136   SHEILA
                                      (422)                          BRADY v. COMMISSIONER                                          423


                                               alleged prior years’ overpayments that might otherwise be
                                               available to satisfy P’s unpaid liability for 2005. Held, further,
                                               R’s determination to levy is sustained.

                                           Kevin Patrick Brady, pro se.
                                           Anne D. Melzer and Kevin M. Murphy, for respondent.
                                        RUWE, Judge: The petition in this case was filed in
                                      response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection
                                      Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of deter-
                                      mination). 1 We must decide whether to sustain the deter-
                                      mination by respondent’s Appeals Office to collect petitioner’s
                                      unpaid income tax liability for tax year 2005 by levy.
                                                                          FINDINGS OF FACT

                                        At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in
                                      New York.
                                        Petitioner did not timely file an income tax return for
                                      2005. In 2007 respondent prepared a substitute for return
                                      and issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner for his 2005
                                      income tax liability. Petitioner did not file a petition, and, on
                                      March 3, 2008, respondent assessed petitioner’s 2005 income
                                      tax liability, along with additions to tax and interest.
                                        On October 27, 2008, respondent sent to petitioner a Letter
                                      1058, Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right
                                      to a Hearing, regarding petitioner’s unpaid liability for tax
                                      year 2005 that indicated an amount due of $18,455.65. On
                                      November 6, 2008, respondent received from petitioner a
                                      Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equiva-
                                      lent Hearing. Although the Letter 1058 pertained only to
                                      2005, petitioner indicated on the Form 12153 that he wanted
                                      to discuss tax years 2004 through 2006 at the collection due
                                      process (CDP) hearing. By letter dated December 9, 2008,
                                      respondent informed petitioner that his request for a CDP
                                      hearing for tax year 2004 was not timely and that with
                                      respect to tax year 2006, no notice of Federal tax lien or
                                      intent to levy had been issued and he did not have a right
                                      to a CDP hearing for those tax years.
                                        In early 2009 petitioner filed his 2005 tax return, which
                                      was accepted by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). As a
                                      result, much of the previously assessed tax for 2005 was
                                       1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as

                                      amended.




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   14:53 May 30, 2013   Jkt 372897   PO 20009   Frm 00002   Fmt 2847   Sfmt 2847   V:\FILES\BRADY.136   SHEILA
                                      424                136 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS                                        (422)


                                      abated. (As of March 2, 2010, the balance due on petitioner’s
                                      account for 2005 was $520.61.)
                                         On April 8, 2009, a CDP hearing was held regarding the
                                      collection of petitioner’s remaining unpaid 2005 tax liability.
                                      At the hearing petitioner appears to have argued that he was
                                      entitled to credits for overpayments in prior years that
                                      should be used to satisfy his 2005 liability. Petitioner’s posi-
                                      tion appeared to be that he sustained a net operating loss
                                      (NOL) in each of the years 2001 and 2002 that should be car-
                                      ried back to 1999 and 2000, which would result in overpay-
                                      ments for 1999 and 2000 that should be used to satisfy his
                                      liability for 2005. Respondent’s settlement officer rejected
                                      petitioner’s position because his claims for overpayments had
                                      previously been considered and disallowed. Petitioner raised
                                      no other issues.
                                         Respondent’s Appeals Office sent to petitioner a Notice of
                                      Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section
                                      6320 and/or 6330 dated April 22, 2009, in which it deter-
                                      mined to proceed with collection by levy. On May 11, 2009,
                                      petitioner filed a petition with this Court in response to the
                                      notice of determination. Petitioner asserts that the IRS
                                      should have allowed his claimed NOL carrybacks from 2001
                                      and 2002 to 1999 and 2000 and that the resulting credits or
                                      refunds satisfy his liability for 2005.
                                      Previous Actions Regarding Petitioner’s Claimed Overpay-
                                      ments for Prior Years
                                         Petitioner did not claim NOLs on his original 2001 and
                                      2002 Federal income tax returns, which were each filed late.
                                      On September 2, 2004, petitioner filed amended returns for
                                      2001 and 2002 claiming an NOL in each year and indicated
                                      that he wanted to carry the NOLs back to his taxable years
                                      1999 and 2000 and claimed refunds for 1999 and 2000.
                                      Respondent treated petitioner’s amended returns as claims
                                      for refund for 1999 and 2000 and disallowed them because
                                      respondent determined that petitioner’s election to waive the
                                      normal 5-year carryback period was not timely made on his
                                      original returns for 2001 and 2002. In November 2004
                                      respondent sent to petitioner notices disallowing petitioner’s
                                      refund claims. The notices of disallowance were sent by cer-
                                      tified mail to petitioner in care of Janine B. Knauf (Ms.




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   14:53 May 30, 2013   Jkt 372897   PO 20009   Frm 00003   Fmt 2847   Sfmt 2847   V:\FILES\BRADY.136   SHEILA
                                      (422)                          BRADY v. COMMISSIONER                                          425


                                      Knauf), to whom petitioner had granted a power of attorney.
                                      Ms. Knauf had prepared petitioner’s amended returns for
                                      2001 and 2002 and represented petitioner with respect to his
                                      claims. On May 8, August 15, and September 8, 2005, peti-
                                      tioner mailed letters to respondent protesting respondent’s
                                      disallowance of the refund claims. In response to petitioner’s
                                      protests, respondent sent to petitioner by certified mail
                                      another letter dated December 29, 2005, again disallowing
                                      petitioner’s refund claims. 2
                                         Petitioner appealed respondent’s disallowance of his claims
                                      for refund to respondent’s Appeals Office. By letter dated
                                      February 16, 2007, the Appeals Office sustained the denial
                                      of petitioner’s claims for refund and informed him that if he
                                      wished to pursue the matter further he had to file suit in
                                      either a U.S. District Court or the U.S. Court of Federal
                                      Claims ‘‘within two-years from the date on the letter denying
                                      your claim, which the Andover IRS Campus mailed to you on
                                      December 29, 2005.’’
                                         On March 26, 2007, petitioner filed a suit in the U.S. Dis-
                                      trict Court for the Western District of New York (District
                                      Court) against eight individuals, including the Commissioner
                                      of Internal Revenue and a U.S. District Court judge. On
                                      April 23, 2007, the District Court dismissed petitioner’s
                                      entire suit for lack of jurisdiction. The District Court dis-
                                      missed the claims against the individual defendants,
                                      characterizing those claims as frivolous and noting that peti-
                                      tioner’s complaint was ‘‘nothing more than a compilation of
                                      his past grievances, pasted together in an attempt to create
                                      a portrait of a conspiracy against him to which it appears
                                      that nearly everyone who has crossed his path is a party’’. 3
                                      The District Court characterized any claims petitioner was
                                      making against the IRS as ‘‘less clear’’, noting that petitioner
                                         2 The letter dated Dec. 29, 2005, references both tax years 2001 and 2002 in disallowing peti-

                                      tioner’s refund claims.
                                         3 The District Court issued a decision and order, which begins by noting that


                                      [Petitioner] has been previously subject to a sanction order in Civil Action No. 03–CV–6305. See
                                      Brady v. Van Strydonck, 93 Fed. Appx. 325 (2d Cir. 2004) (affirming the District Court’s Deci-
                                      sion and Order dated July 17, 2003). Subsequently, * * * [petitioner] has had a number of other
                                      actions dismissed (06–CV–6111, 06–CV–6112, 06–CV–6113, 06–CV–6114 and 06–CV–6134). In
                                      these cases, * * * [petitioner] was denied a certificate of appealability and the appeals dis-
                                      missed because the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found ‘‘Appellant failed to make a
                                      substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.’’ COA Docket No. 06–2246, mandate
                                      entered October 20, 2006 (consolidating cases). As a result of the sanction order, the instant ac-
                                      tion is reviewed for jurisdiction prior to the issuance of any Summonses. * * * [Brady v.
                                      Larimer, No. 07–CV–6164CJS(P) (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2007); fn. ref. omitted.]




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   14:53 May 30, 2013   Jkt 372897   PO 20009   Frm 00004   Fmt 2847   Sfmt 2847   V:\FILES\BRADY.136   SHEILA
                                      426                    136 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS                                       (422)


                                      appeared to argue that he qualified as a small business and
                                      that the IRS improperly refused to permit him a ‘‘ ‘two year
                                      carryback’.’’ The District Court noted that the bulk of peti-
                                      tioner’s allegations stressed the adverse impact suffered
                                      because the IRS sought additional taxes rather than claims
                                      that he overpaid taxes. The District Court dismissed any
                                      claim petitioner was making against the IRS for lack of juris-
                                      diction, stating that petitioner’s ‘‘papers do not establish that
                                      he has met the conditions for jurisdiction provided by 26
                                      U.S.C. §7422(a) or any exceptions thereto’’. 4 Petitioner
                                      appealed the decision of the District Court, and, on January
                                      23, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
                                      affirmed the District Court’s decision and order. Brady v.
                                      Larimer, 262 Fed. Appx. 316 (2d Cir. 2008).

                                                                                      OPINION

                                      A. Collection Review Principles
                                        Section 6330(a)(1) provides that no levy may be made on
                                      any property or right to property of any person unless the
                                      Secretary has notified the person in writing of his or her
                                      right to a hearing under this section before the levy is made.
                                      The notice must include in simple and nontechnical terms,
                                      inter alia, the right of the person to request a hearing to be
                                      held by the IRS Office of Appeals. See sec. 6330(a)(3)(B).
                                        At the hearing the person may raise any relevant issue
                                      relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy, including
                                      appropriate spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriate-
                                      ness of collection actions, and offers of collection alternatives.
                                      Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A). Section 6330(c)(2)(B) further provides that
                                      the person may also raise at the hearing challenges to the
                                      existence or amount of the underlying tax liability for any
                                      tax period if the person did not receive any statutory notice
                                      of deficiency for the tax liability or did not otherwise have an
                                      opportunity to dispute the tax liability. Section 6330(d)(1)
                                      confers jurisdiction on the Tax Court to review the deter-
                                      mination of the Appeals officer.



                                           4 Sec.   7422(a) specifies requirements for tax refund suits. See infra pp. 428–429.




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   14:53 May 30, 2013     Jkt 372897    PO 20009   Frm 00005   Fmt 2847   Sfmt 2847   V:\FILES\BRADY.136   SHEILA
                                      (422)                              BRADY v. COMMISSIONER                                         427


                                      B. The Parties’ Contentions
                                         Petitioner’s challenge to respondent’s determination resur-
                                      rects his refund claims. Petitioner contends that the alleged
                                      NOLs for 2001 and 2002 should be carried back to 1999 and
                                      2000 and that the resulting overpayment credits from 1999
                                      and 2000 should be used to satisfy his tax liability for 2005.
                                      Respondent contends that petitioner is not entitled to over-
                                      payment credits and that those previously disallowed over-
                                      payment claims are now time barred.
                                         In certain situations we have considered taxpayers’ claims
                                      that their liability for the year involved in a section 6330
                                      collection proceeding should be eliminated by overpayments
                                      in other years. See Freije v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 14
                                      (2005); Landry v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 60 (2001). 5
                                      Assuming that it would be appropriate in this case to con-
                                      sider the merits of petitioner’s claims of overpayments in
                                      prior years, we will first consider if those claims are now
                                      time barred.
                                         Whether petitioner is entitled to credit against his unpaid
                                      2005 taxes for alleged overpayments in prior years depends
                                      first on whether his overpayment claims were made within
                                      the period of limitations for making such claims. See Landry
                                      v. Commissioner, supra at 62.
                                      C. Period of Limitations for Overpayment Claims
                                            Section 6402(a) provides:
                                        SEC. 6402(a). GENERAL RULE.—In the case of any overpayment, the Sec-
                                      retary, within the applicable period of limitations, may credit the amount
                                           5 In   Freije v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 14, 26–28 (2005), we stated:
                                      Since an ‘‘unpaid tax’’ is the sine qua non of the Commissioner’s authority to levy, we believe
                                      a claim directed at the status of the tax as ‘‘unpaid’’ is a ‘‘relevant issue relating to the unpaid
                                      tax or the proposed levy’’. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(A). Meaningful review of a claim that a tax sought
                                      to be collected by levy has been paid, by means of a remittance or an available credit, will typi-
                                      cally require consideration of facts and issues in nondetermination years, as those years may
                                      constitute the years to which a remittance was applied or from which a credit originated.
                                                         *        *        *          *       *         *        *
                                        * * * [W]e hold that our jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1)(A) encompasses consideration
                                      of facts and issues in nondetermination years where the facts and issues are relevant in evalu-
                                      ating a claim that an unpaid tax has been paid.
                                                         *        *        *        *         *          *       *
                                        * * * We conclude that our jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1)(A) extends to the consider-
                                      ation of facts and issues in a nondetermination year only insofar as the tax liability for that
                                      year may affect the appropriateness of the collection action for the determination year. * * *
                                        [Fn. ref. omitted.]




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   14:53 May 30, 2013     Jkt 372897    PO 20009   Frm 00006   Fmt 2847   Sfmt 2847   V:\FILES\BRADY.136   SHEILA
                                      428                    136 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS                                         (422)


                                      of such overpayment, including any interest allowed thereon, against any
                                      liability in respect of an internal revenue tax on the part of the person who
                                      made the overpayment and shall, subject to subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f)
                                      refund any balance to such person. [Emphasis added.]

                                      ‘‘[U]nder section 6402(a) the application of overpayments of
                                      a taxpayer from other years to a particular year of the tax-
                                      payer is subject to the applicable refund period of limita-
                                      tions.’’ Crum v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008–216. Thus,
                                      if petitioner’s overpayment claims are statutorily time barred
                                      (assuming arguendo that there was an overpayment), any
                                      claim that overpayments are available as a credit to offset
                                      the 2005 tax liability would also be time barred.
                                         The period of limitations for filing a claim for credit or
                                      refund with the IRS is found in section 6511. Petitioner’s
                                      refund claims, which were made when he filed his amended
                                      2001 and 2002 returns, were timely under section 6511, and
                                      respondent did not dispute the timeliness of those refund
                                      claims. 6 However, respondent disallowed petitioner’s refund
                                      claims for other reasons. 7
                                         Where a taxpayer is not satisfied with the IRS’ decision
                                      regarding his refund claim, the taxpayer may seek judicial
                                      relief. Section 7422(a) provides, in pertinent part:
                                           6 Sec.   6511(a) provides:
                                         SEC. 6511(a). PERIOD OF LIMITATION ON FILING CLAIM.—Claim for credit or refund of an over-
                                      payment 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, or if
                                      no return was filed by the taxpayer, within 2 years from the time the tax was paid. * * *
                                        Sec. 6511(b)(2) provides two lookback periods to determine the limitation on the amount of
                                      a credit or refund. However, special rules apply with respect to an NOL. Sec. 6511(d)(2). The
                                      limitation period under the special rule with respect to an NOL, is as follows:
                                        (A) PERIOD OF LIMITATION.—If the claim for credit or refund relates to an overpayment attrib-
                                      utable to a net operating loss carryback or a capital loss carryback, in lieu of the 3-year period
                                      of limitations prescribed in subsection (a), the period shall be that period which ends 3 years
                                      after the time prescribed by law for filing the return (including extensions thereof) for the tax-
                                      able year of the net operating loss or net capital loss which results in such carryback, or the
                                      period prescribed in subsection (c) in respect of such taxable year, whichever expires later.
                                        In the case of such a claim, the amount of the credit or refund may exceed the portion of
                                      the tax paid within the period provided in subsection (b)(2) or (c), whichever is applicable, to
                                      the extent of the amount of the overpayment attributable to such carryback.
                                        [Sec. 6511(d)(2)(A).]
                                        Sec. 6511(c) provides special rules in the case of agreements for extensions of the period for
                                      assessing tax and is not applicable in this case.
                                        7 The refund claims were disallowed because respondent determined that petitioner’s election

                                      to waive the normal 5-year carryback period was not timely made on his original returns for
                                      2001 and 2002. We express no opinion on the correctness of this determination.




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   14:53 May 30, 2013     Jkt 372897    PO 20009     Frm 00007   Fmt 2847   Sfmt 2847   V:\FILES\BRADY.136   SHEILA
                                      (422)                          BRADY v. COMMISSIONER                                          429


                                      No 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 with-
                                      out 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, according to the provisions of law in that
                                      regard, and the regulations of the Secretary established in pursuance
                                      thereof.

                                      Title 28 U.S.C. sec. 1346(a) (2006) provides:
                                        (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with
                                      the United States Court of Federal Claims, of:
                                        (1) Any civil action against the United States for the recovery of any
                                      internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed
                                      or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without
                                      authority or any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner
                                      wrongfully collected under the internal revenue laws;

                                      Title 28 U.S.C. sec. 1491(a)(1) (2006) provides the jurisdic-
                                      tional authority for such claims in the Court of Federal
                                      Claims.
                                         A taxpayer has a limited time in which to pursue a judicial
                                      remedy for the recovery of tax paid. Section 6532(a), which
                                      addresses the limitation periods applicable to such suits, pro-
                                      vides:
                                        (1) GENERAL RULE.—No suit or proceeding under section 7422(a) for the
                                      recovery of any internal revenue tax, penalty, or other sum, shall be begun
                                      before the expiration of 6 months from the date of filing the claim required
                                      under such section unless the Secretary renders a decision thereon within
                                      that time, nor after the expiration of 2 years from the date of mailing by
                                      certified mail or registered mail by the Secretary to the taxpayer of a notice
                                      of the disallowance of the part of the claim to which the suit or proceeding
                                      relates. [Emphasis added.]

                                         The initial notices of disallowance of petitioner’s refund
                                      claims were sent to him by certified mail in November 2004.
                                      Therefore, the period for filing a refund suit would have
                                      expired in November 2006. The notices were sent to peti-
                                      tioner in care of petitioner’s representative who had been
                                      given a power of attorney for this matter. Petitioner argues
                                      that he did not receive the IRS’ November 2004 notices dis-
                                      allowing his refund claims. However, petitioner must have
                                      received the notices because he mailed protest letters to the
                                      IRS on May 8, August 15, and September 8, 2005, stating his




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   14:53 May 30, 2013   Jkt 372897   PO 20009   Frm 00008   Fmt 2847   Sfmt 2847   V:\FILES\BRADY.136   SHEILA
                                      430                136 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS                                        (422)


                                      disagreement with the IRS’ disallowance of his refund claims
                                      and asking for reconsideration. 8
                                         Petitioner acknowledged that he received respondent’s sub-
                                      sequent notice of disallowance, which was sent to him by cer-
                                      tified mail on December 29, 2005. He also received the letter
                                      from respondent’s Appeals Office dated February 16, 2007,
                                      sustaining the denial of his refund claim. Section 6532(a)(4)
                                      addresses situations where a previously disallowed refund
                                      claim has been given reconsideration. Section 6532(a)(4) pro-
                                      vides:
                                        (4) RECONSIDERATION AFTER MAILING OF NOTICE.—Any consideration,
                                      reconsideration, or action by the Secretary with respect to such claim fol-
                                      lowing the mailing of a notice by certified mail or registered mail of dis-
                                      allowance shall not operate to extend the period within which suit may be
                                      begun.

                                      Section 6532(a)(4) makes clear that the additional consider-
                                      ation given by respondent did not operate to extend the
                                      period within which petitioner had to file suit. See RHI
                                      Holdings, Inc. v. United States, 142 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir.
                                      1998); Brach v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 60 (2011); Estate
                                      of Orlando v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 286, 290 (2010) (‘‘The
                                      two-year period runs from the date the notice of disallowance
                                      is sent and, by statute, it is not tolled by any administrative
                                      appeals.’’).
                                         We note, however, that the letter from respondent’s
                                      Appeals Office dated February 16, 2007, which sustained the
                                      disallowance of petitioner’s claims, erroneously informed peti-
                                      tioner that he could file a refund suit ‘‘within two-years from
                                      the date on the letter denying your claim, which the Andover
                                      IRS Campus mailed to you on December 29, 2005.’’ Where a
                                      taxpayer has been misled by the IRS into believing that he
                                      had additional time for filing a refund suit, there is some
                                      authority for giving the taxpayer the benefit of the additional
                                      time. See Miller v. United States, 500 F.2d 1007 (2d Cir.
                                      1974); Maiman v. IRS, 81 AFTR 2d 98–1456, at 98–1458, 98–
                                      1 USTC par. 50,324, at 83,787 (E.D.N.Y. 1998), affd. without
                                      published opinion 182 F.3d 900 (2d Cir. 1999).
                                        8 It has been held that actual receipt of a notice of disallowance is not required so long as

                                      the notice of disallowance was mailed to the taxpayer by certified mail. See Rosser v. United
                                      States, 9 F.3d 1519 (11th Cir. 1993); Maiman v. IRS, 81 AFTR 2d 98–1456, at 98–1457, 98–
                                      1 USTC par. 50,324, at 83,786 (E.D.N.Y. 1998), affd. without published opinion 182 F.3d 900
                                      (2d Cir. 1999).




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   14:53 May 30, 2013   Jkt 372897   PO 20009   Frm 00009   Fmt 2847   Sfmt 2847   V:\FILES\BRADY.136   SHEILA
                                      (422)                          BRADY v. COMMISSIONER                                          431


                                        Even if we were to assume arguendo that petitioner was
                                      misled by the Appeals Office letter or that the notices sent
                                      in November 2004 were defective and that petitioner had 2
                                      years from the December 29, 2005, notice of disallowance in
                                      which to file a refund suit, it would be of no benefit to him.
                                      Petitioner acknowledged receiving the December 29, 2005,
                                      notice of disallowance, which was sent to him by certified
                                      mail. Petitioner did not file a valid refund suit regarding his
                                      disallowed claims for credit or refund within the 2-year
                                      period after December 29, 2005. 9 Petitioner neither
                                      requested a CDP hearing nor filed the instant proceeding
                                      within 2 years from the date of the December 29, 2005,
                                      notice. Thus, any suit or judicial proceeding challenging the
                                      disallowance of petitioner’s refund claims was barred in 2008
                                      when he requested a CDP hearing and filed his petition in
                                      this case.
                                        Section 6514(a) provides:
                                        SEC. 6514(a). CREDITS OR REFUNDS AFTER PERIOD OF LIMITATION.—A
                                      refund of any portion of an internal revenue tax shall be considered erro-
                                      neous and a credit of any such portion shall be considered void—

                                                                  *   *    *    *   *    *   *
                                             (2) DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM AND EXPIRATION OF PERIOD FOR FILING
                                           SUIT.—In the case of a claim filed within the proper time and disallowed
                                           by the Secretary, if the credit or refund was made after the expiration
                                           of the period of limitation for filing suit, unless within such period suit
                                           was begun by the taxpayer.

                                      Section 6514 emphasizes the point that refunds and credits
                                      that do not comply with the applicable limitations period
                                      ‘‘shall be considered erroneous’’. United States v. Brockamp,
                                      519 U.S. 347, 351 (1997). The strict terms of sections 6532
                                      and 6514, limiting refunds or credits for overpayments, pre-
                                      clude the relief petitioner seeks. 10 We hold that because peti-
                                      tioner failed to initiate a timely judicial action to contest the
                                      disallowance of his claims for credit or refund within the
                                      period of limitations as provided in section 6532, he is now
                                         9 Whether petitioner might have subjectively intended his previously mentioned multifaceted

                                      suit in the District Court, which was filed in March 2007, to include a refund claim is irrelevant
                                      because the District Court held that petitioner failed to establish that he had met the jurisdic-
                                      tional requirements for a refund suit. The District Court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was
                                      affirmed and has become final.
                                         10 The parties have not cited any cases where this Court has previously considered the appli-

                                      cation of secs. 6532 and 6514 to bar the use of a credit in the context of a sec. 6330 proceeding,
                                      and this issue appears to be one of first impression.




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   14:53 May 30, 2013   Jkt 372897   PO 20009   Frm 00010   Fmt 2847   Sfmt 2847   V:\FILES\BRADY.136   SHEILA
                                      432                136 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS                                        (422)


                                      barred by section 6514(a) from receiving any such credit
                                      toward his unpaid 2005 liability.
                                         We hold that respondent may proceed with the collection
                                      action specified in the notice of determination. In reaching
                                      the conclusions described herein, we have considered all
                                      arguments made by petitioner, and, to the extent not men-
                                      tioned above, we find them to be irrelevant or without merit.
                                         To reflect the foregoing,
                                                                           Decision will be entered for respondent.

                                                                               f




VerDate 0ct 09 2002   14:53 May 30, 2013   Jkt 372897   PO 20009   Frm 00011   Fmt 2847   Sfmt 2847   V:\FILES\BRADY.136   SHEILA
