Case ID: f3d_40/html/0025-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles KURALT and Suzanna Kuralt, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 522, Docket 94-6117.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Argued Nov. 4, 1994.
    Decided Nov. 10, 1994.
    Joel E. Miller, Flushing, NY, for plaintiffs-appellants.
    William J. Hoffman, New York City (Mary Jo White, U.S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., Gabriel W. Gorenstein, Asst. U.S. Atty., of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
    Before MESKILL, WINTER, and MAHONEY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by Judge McKenna. Kuralt v. United States, 866 F.Supp. 727 (S.D.N.Y.1994).

The Kuralts essentially argue on appeal that there is subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether a claimed refund is “attributable to [a TEFRA] item[]” within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 7422(h). We have no quarrel with this general proposition, but conclude that the claimed refund in this case, which relates to a disallowed loss on the return of an S corporation of which Charles Kuralt was a shareholder, is clearly so attributable.