                        T.C. Memo. 2010-147



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 MATTHIAS HALLER, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 11448-08.              Filed July 6, 2010.



     Matthias Haller, pro se.

     Richard J. Hassebrock, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     WELLS, Judge:   Respondent determined a deficiency of $6,323

in petitioner’s Federal income tax for his 2003 tax year, a

failure to file addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) of

$373, and a failure to pay addition to tax pursuant to section
                                - 2 -

6651(a)(2) of $357.1   Respondent concedes that petitioner is not

liable for the amounts set forth in the notice of deficiency and

contends that the period of limitations is closed for

petitioner’s refund claim.    Petitioner contends that the period

of limitations is suspended pursuant to section 6511(h) on

account of his financial disability and that he is entitled to an

overpayment of $17,044 (overpayment).   Respondent concedes that

petitioner is entitled to a refund of the overpayment if the

period of limitations is suspended pursuant to section 6511(h).

Petitioner concedes that, absent a showing of financial

disability, the period of limitations for refund of the

overpayment for his 2003 tax year is closed.   Accordingly, we

must decide whether petitioner was financially disabled pursuant

to section 6511(h).

                         FINDINGS OF FACT

     Some of the facts and certain exhibits have been stipulated.

The stipulations of fact are incorporated in this opinion by

reference and are so found.

     At the time he filed his petition, petitioner resided in

Ohio.




     1
      Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, as amended. All amounts are rounded
to the nearest whole dollar.
                                 - 3 -

     During 2002 petitioner and his wife, Maxine Haller (Mrs.

Haller),2 owned and operated two businesses named Restorative

Solutions, L.L.C. (Restorative Solutions), and Orthocad, L.L.C.

(Orthocad).3    Restorative Solutions and Orthocad provided custom

wheelchairs to disabled individuals and performed maintenance on

them as necessary.     During their 2003 tax year, petitioner and

Mrs. Haller paid through withholding $23,791 in Federal income

taxes.     Restorative Solutions and Orthocad were dissolved on

December 1, 2005.

     From sometime during 2002 until mid-2007, petitioner

suffered from stress-induced adrenal failure which affected his

memory.4    Petitioner’s illness caused him to forget to pay bills

and miss appointments.     However, during his illness, petitioner

would have clear days when he thought he could accomplish



     2
      Mrs. Haller was a signatory to the petition in this
proceeding. However, respondent filed a motion to dismiss Mrs.
Haller for lack of jurisdiction because no notice of deficiency
was issued to her. By order dated July 15, 2008, Mrs. Haller was
dismissed from this proceeding.
     3
      Restorative Solutions and Orthocad were limited liability
companies pursuant to the laws of Ohio and were formed on Apr.
30, 2002.
     4
      At trial petitioner did not present expert testimony
regarding the effects of his illness on his physical and mental
capacity to carry on his financial affairs. However, respondent
does not refute the fact that petitioner was ill as he described
in his testimony; rather, respondent disputes whether
petitioner’s illness was sufficient to toll the period of
limitations of sec. 6511(b), pursuant to sec. 6511(h). We,
therefore, accept as true petitioner’s testimony describing his
illness and its effects on him.
                               - 4 -

anything.   Petitioner’s illness was a result of stress from work

and Mrs. Haller’s health problem discussed below.

     From 2003 to 2007, petitioner was aware of his obligation to

file a Federal income tax return for his 2003 tax year.

Petitioner and Mrs. Haller made several attempts to have their

2003 tax return prepared for them.     During 2004 petitioner and

Mrs. Haller hired an accountant to prepare their 2003 tax return.

However, their accountant never finished their 2003 return

because they could not afford his fee.     Petitioner and Mrs.

Haller also contacted the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and

investigated pro bono tax preparation services, but they were

unable to obtain aid in filing their 2003 tax return.     Mrs.

Haller attempted to prepare their 2003 return “every night for

two weeks” but did not complete the forms.

     During the period of petitioner’s illness, petitioner and

Mrs. Haller were physically and financially able to care for

their children.   During 2004 to 2007 petitioner and Mrs. Haller

paid some of their bills, and their utilities were never cut off.

Petitioner and Mrs. Haller earned $72,000 in wage income during

2004 and over $47,000 during 2005.

     During April 2003, Mrs. Haller contracted a staph infection

before the birth of her first son.     Mrs. Haller’s illness

resulted in a reduced ability to participate in Restorative

Solutions and Orthocad during 2003 and 2004.
                               - 5 -

     During 2005, petitioner and Mrs. Haller searched for and

hired a bankruptcy attorney.   On October 7, 2005, petitioner and

Mrs. Haller filed a joint chapter 7 petition in the U.S.

Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.   On February

10, 2006, petitioner and Mrs. Haller were granted a discharge by

the bankruptcy court.   As a result of the bankruptcy proceeding,

petitioner and Mrs. Haller lost their home.

     After petitioner and Mrs. Haller failed to file a Federal

income tax return for their 2003 taxable year, respondent

prepared a section 6020(b) substitute return for 2003.   On

February 11, 2008, respondent sent petitioner a notice of

deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax for his 2003 tax

year and additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2).

     While petitioner’s case was being considered by respondent,

petitioner and Mrs. Haller submitted to respondent’s Appeals

Office a joint Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for

their 2003 tax year,5 on which they claimed married filing

jointly status, tax payments of $23,791, and a tax refund of

$17,044.

     On January 26, 2009, petitioner provided respondent with

copies of two physician’s statements signed by Dr. Timothy

Kubacki, D.O., one on behalf of petitioner and one on behalf of


     5
      The record is unclear as to whether petitioner and Mrs.
Haller submitted their 2003 tax return before or after respondent
sent the notice of deficiency.
                                 - 6 -

Mrs. Haller.     On February 5, 2009, petitioner faxed to

respondent’s counsel a signed statement, dated February 4, 2009,

which reads:     “With my signature below, I confirm that for the

period of my impairment no other person was given authorization

to act on my behalf concerning financial matters.”     The

physician’s statements and petitioner’s signed statement were not

attached to petitioner’s Federal income tax return for his 2003

taxable year.6

                                OPINION

     The issue we must decide is whether petitioner was

financially disabled pursuant to section 6511(h).    If the period

of limitations for refund of the overpayment was suspended on

account of petitioner’s financial disability, respondent concedes

that the overpayment should be allowed.    Section 6512 grants this

Court limited jurisdiction to decide overpayments of tax and




     6
      Respondent objects to the physician’s statements on the
basis of hearsay and lack of authentication. See Fed. R. Evid.
801(c), 802, 901. We conclude that the physician’s statements
are hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible for the truth of the
matter asserted. However, we admit the physician’s statements
for the limited purpose of showing that petitioner sent the
statements to respondent on Jan. 26, 2009. See Fed. R. Evid.
901. Moreover, even if we were to consider the evidence to which
respondent objects, we would hold for respondent because we
conclude that it is insufficient to establish financial
disability pursuant to sec. 6511(h). See infra; see also Perkins
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-261 (“We need not decide whether
the evidence is admissible, because we find that it is
insufficient to establish that petitioner was financially
disabled within the meaning of section 6511(h).”).
                                - 7 -

order the refund of such overpayments to taxpayers.       Section

6512(b)(1) provides as follows:

     if the Tax Court finds that there is no deficiency and
     further finds that the taxpayer has made an overpayment of
     income tax * * * or finds that there is a deficiency but
     that the taxpayer has made an overpayment of such tax, the
     Tax Court shall have jurisdiction to determine the amount of
     such overpayment, and such amount shall, when the decision
     of the Tax Court has become final, be credited or refunded
     to the taxpayer.

     The amount of any refund which this Court may award,

however, is restricted to payments made by the taxpayer pursuant

to section 6512(b)(3), which provides as follows:

     No such credit or refund shall be allowed or made of any
     portion of the tax unless the Tax Court determines as part
     of its decision that such portion was paid--

                *     *    *    *       *     *    *

          (B) within the period which would be applicable under
          section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), if on the date of the
          mailing of the notice of deficiency a claim had been
          filed (whether or not filed) * * *

     Although “not elegant,” the statutory scheme is

straightforward.    Commissioner v. Lundy, 516 U.S. 235, 242

(1996).   “[A]ll that matters for the proper application of

section 6512(b)(3)(B) is that the ‘claim’ contemplated in that

section be treated as the only mechanism for determining whether

a taxpayer can recover a refund.”       Id.   Accordingly, the statute

defines the limitation relevant to the instant case by

incorporating the “lookback” provisions found in section 6511(b)

and “directs the Tax Court to determine the applicable period by
                               - 8 -

inquiring into the timeliness of a hypothetical claim for refund

filed ‘on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency.’”7

Id.   “[A] taxpayer who seeks a refund in the Tax Court * * * does

not need to actually file a claim for refund with the IRS; the

taxpayer need only show that the tax to be refunded was paid

during the applicable look-back period.”   Id. at 241.   In other

words, the taxpayer need only timely file a petition contesting

the notice of deficiency in the Tax Court and prove an

overpayment occurred during the applicable lookback period.

      Section 6511(b) limits the amount of tax to be refunded to

two “lookback” periods:   (1) If the claim is filed within 3 years

from the time the return was filed, the taxpayer is entitled to a

refund of the portion of the tax paid within the 3 years

immediately preceding the filing of the claim (plus the period of

any extensions of time for filing the return); or (2) if the

claim is not filed within that 3-year period, the taxpayer is

entitled to a refund of only that “portion of the tax paid during

the 2 years immediately preceding the filing of the claim.”    Sec.




      7
      Generally, sec. 6511 provides the period during which a
taxpayer must claim a refund or credit for overpaid taxes. The
taxpayer must file a claim for refund “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(a).
                                 - 9 -

6511(b)(2)(A) and (B); see Commissioner v. Lundy, supra at 240.8

Petitioner is deemed to have paid on April 15, 2004, the taxes

that were withheld from him and paid to the IRS for his 2003 tax

year.    See sec. 6513(b)(1).   Respondent sent petitioner a notice

of deficiency dated February 11, 2008, more than 3 years after

petitioner’s taxes for his 2003 tax year were deemed paid.

Consequently, the applicable lookback period is the 2 years

before February 11, 2008.    The period of limitations, therefore,

closed on February 11, 2006, unless it was suspended by section

6511(h).

     Section 6511(h) provides equitable relief to suspend the

period of limitations for taxpayers seeking a refund or credit

for overpaid taxes.9   Section 6511(h) provides as follows:


     8
      In Commissioner v. Lundy, 516 U.S. 235 (1996), the Supreme
Court held that, where the taxpayer does not file a return or a
claim for refund before the Commissioner issues a notice of
deficiency, the 2-year lookback period applies, measured from the
date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency. Shortly after
the Supreme Court decided Lundy, Congress amended sec. 6512(b)(3)
to extend the lookback rule to 3 years in a case where the
taxpayer fails to file a return or a claim for refund before the
mailing of a notice of deficiency and the letter is mailed on a
date “during the third year after the due date (with extensions)
for filing the return of tax”. Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Pub.
L. 105-34, sec. 1282(a), 111 Stat 1037. The amended statute is
effective for taxable years ending after Aug. 5, 1997. Id. sec.
1282(b), 111 Stat. 1038.
     9
      Before the enactment of sec. 6511(h), the Supreme Court
held that, although a taxpayer’s mental disability might be a
valid reason for equitable tolling, the period of limitations
could not be equitably tolled because the sec. 6511 deadline for
filing a refund claim contained no “implied ‘equitable tolling’”
                                                   (continued...)
                             - 10 -

          SEC. 6511(h). Running of Periods of Limitation
     Suspended While Taxpayer Is Unable to Manage Financial
     Affairs Due to Disability.--

               (1) In general.--In the case of an
          individual, the running of the periods specified
          in subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall be
          suspended during any period of such individual’s
          life that such individual is financially disabled.

               (2) Financially disabled.--

                    (A) In general.--For purposes of
               paragraph (1), an individual is financially
               disabled if such individual is unable to
               manage his financial affairs by reason of a
               medically determinable physical or mental
               impairment of the individual which can be
               expected to result in death or which has
               lasted or can be expected to last for a
               continuous period of not less than 12 months.
               An individual shall not be considered to have
               such an impairment unless proof of the
               existence thereof is furnished in such form
               and manner as the Secretary may require.

                    (B) Exception where individual has
               guardian, etc.--An individual shall not be
               treated as financially disabled during any
               period that such individual’s spouse or any
               other person is authorized to act on behalf
               of such individual in financial matters.

     In order for a taxpayer to qualify as financially disabled

pursuant to section 6511(h), the physical or mental impairment

must be that of the taxpayer, not of some third person.   Brosi v.

Commissioner, 120 T.C. 5, 10 (2003).   Moreover, Congress clearly



     9
      (...continued)
exception. United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347, 350-351
(1997). In response to Brockamp, Congress enacted sec. 6511(h)
to allow equitable tolling in certain cases. See H. Conf. Rept.
105-599, at 255 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 747, 1009.
                                 - 11 -

intended that the physical or mental impairment of the taxpayer

be substantial.    Id. at 11.    The impairment must be one that is

“expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be

expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12

months.”   Sec. 6511(h)(2)(A).

     To be eligible, the taxpayer must present proof of a

qualifying impairment in the form and manner specified by the

Secretary.   Id.   The Secretary has established that form and

manner in Rev. Proc. 99-21, 1999-1 C.B. 960.       See Green v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-105.        According to the revenue

procedure, the taxpayer must provide a physician’s written

statement setting forth, inter alia:       (1) A description of the

taxpayer’s physical or mental impairment; (2) the physician’s

medical opinion that the taxpayer’s physical or mental impairment

prevented him from managing his financial affairs; (3) the

physician’s medical opinion that the impairment was or could be

expected to result in death or lasted (or could be expected to

last) for a continuous period of not less than 12 months; and (4)

the specific period during which the taxpayer was prevented by

such physical or mental impairment from managing the taxpayer’s

financial affairs.   Rev. Proc. 99-21, sec. 4(1).       Additionally,

the taxpayer must submit a written declaration stating that no

person was authorized to act on behalf of the taxpayer in

financial matters during the period of financial disability.          Id.
                               - 12 -

The physician’s statement and written declaration must be

submitted along with the taxpayer’s claim for credit or refund.

Id.

      Petitioner contends that he was financially disabled

continuously from sometime during 2002 through the middle of

2007, a period of nearly 4½ years.      Additionally, petitioner

contends that Mrs. Haller was not able to act on his behalf.

Respondent contends that petitioner’s illness was not continuous,

that Mrs. Haller was authorized to act on his behalf, and that

petitioner did not meet the procedural requirements of section

6511(h) and Rev. Proc. 99-21, supra.

      We conclude that petitioner has not shown that he was

financially disabled.    Petitioner was able to take care of his

financial affairs from 2002 to 2007, the period of his claimed

illness.10   We accept that petitioner suffered from stress-

induced adrenal failure that affected his memory and his ability

to run his businesses, and perhaps his ability to earn money.

However, during the period of his illness petitioner and Mrs.

Haller were physically and financially able to care for their

children.    Moreover, during 2004 petitioner and Mrs. Haller

earned $72,000 in wage income.    See Perkins v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2008-261 (taxpayer who earned significant amounts of



      10
      Petitioner has not argued that his illness would result in
death. Accordingly, we need not address that issue.
                              - 13 -

income, entered into lease agreements, and was predominantly in

charge of the household was not financially disabled).

Additionally, petitioner testified that he was aware of his

obligation to file a Federal income tax return for his 2003 tax

year and that during his illness he would have clear days when he

thought he could accomplish anything.

     Petitioner also points to a lack of funds and an inability

to pay bills on time as evidence of financial disability.

However, during 2004 to 2007, petitioner and Mrs. Haller paid

some of their bills, and petitioner’s utilities were never cut

off during that period.   See Glover v. United States, 96 AFTR 2d

2005-5251 (E.D. Mich. 2005) (taxpayer who could make timely

mortgage, car, and utility bill payments was not financially

disabled).   In any case, as stated above, a lack of funds may be

a symptom of financial disability; it is not, standing alone,

proof of financial disability for purposes of section 6511(h).

     Similarly, petitioner points to the loss of his home in a

bankruptcy proceeding as evidence of financial disability.    While

petitioner and Mrs. Haller did lose their house, petitioner has

failed to show that the bankruptcy was due to other than a lack

of funds, as opposed to a physical or mental impairment that
                             - 14 -

prevented him from the act of carrying on his financial

affairs.11

     Petitioner’s other actions during the relevant period are

also evidence that he was not financially disabled.     For

instance, during 2004 petitioner and Mrs. Haller were able to

hire an accountant to prepare their 2003 tax return.12

Petitioner and Mrs. Haller also contacted the IRS and

investigated pro bono tax preparation services.13

     On the basis of the entire record, we hold that petitioner

has failed to prove that he was financially disabled; i.e., had a

physical or mental impairment that prevented him from carrying on

his financial affairs for a continuous period which lasted or was

expected to last not less than 12 months as required by section

6511(h).

     Because we hold that petitioner has not shown that he was

financially disabled for the relevant period, we need not decide

whether Mrs. Haller was authorized to act on petitioner’s behalf.

See sec. 6511(h)(2)(B).


     11
      During 2005, petitioner and Mrs. Haller filed a voluntary
petition in bankruptcy. While bankruptcy also may be a symptom
of financial disability, we believe that their voluntary
bankruptcy petition is evidence of their mental capacity to make
decisions about their affairs.
     12
      However, petitioner and Mrs. Haller’s accountant never
finished their 2003 return because they could not afford his fee.
     13
      Petitioner and Mrs. Haller were unable to obtain aid in
filing their 2003 tax return.
                              - 15 -

     As the period of limitations set forth in section 6511 is

not suspended pursuant to section 6511(h), petitioner is not

entitled to the refund of his overpayment of taxes for his 2003

taxable year.   See secs. 6511 and 6512.

     The Court has considered all of the arguments made by the

parties and, to the extent we have not addressed them herein, we

consider them unnecessary to reach, moot, irrelevant, or without

merit.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                           Decision will be entered

                                    for respondent.
