Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01465/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01465-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted October 31, 2016*

Decided November 1, 2016 

Before 

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge 

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge 

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 16-1465 

SCOTT E. GILLESPIE and 

DEBRA J. GILLESPIE, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 Defendant-Appellee.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 15-CV-0434 

Lynn Adelman, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Scott and Debra Gillespie sued the United States for a refund of all federal 

income taxes they paid for 2009, based on their position that they did not have taxable 

earnings. The district court dismissed the action after concluding that the Gillespies had 

not initially filed a claim for refund with the IRS, as required by 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). The 

Gillespies appeal this dismissal, and we affirm the judgment. 

 

*

 We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without oral argument because 

the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral 

argument would not significantly aid the court. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

Case: 16-1465 Document: 24 Filed: 11/01/2016 Pages: 3
No. 16-1465 Page 2 

In April 2013 the Gillespies filed an amended return for the 2009 taxable year 

“correcting” their taxable income from $82,499 to $0 and claiming a refund of all taxes 

paid for that tax year. On their amended return the Gillespies wrote that they had 

revised their earnings calculation to make it “conform to IRC Title 26 sec. 3401(a), 

sec. 3121(a), sec. 3401(c), and sec. 3401(d)” (referring to the tax code’s definitions of 

“wages,” “employee,” and “employer”). When the IRS did not process the amended 

return or issue a refund, the couple commenced this action. 

The government moved to dismiss, principally arguing that the Gillespies’ 

amended return did not constitute a claim for refund for purposes of § 7422(a), which 

provides that 

[n]o 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 . . . 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. 

Although a legitimate tax return can be a claim for refund, see 26 C.F.R. 

§ 301.6402–3(a)(5), the government asserted that the Gillespies’ amended return was not 

“an honest and genuine attempt to meet the requirements” of the tax code because it 

rested on the frivolous assertion that wages are not taxable. This absence of a legitimate 

claim for refund, the government argued, was a jurisdictional defect. Regardless, the 

government added, the Gillespies’ lawsuit should be dismissed because their theory of 

recovery is frivolous and they do not explain how any cited provision of the Internal 

Revenue Code would entitle them to a refund. 

The district court disagreed with the government’s position that § 7422(a) 

imposes a jurisdictional requirement but did agree that dismissal was warranted 

because the amended return was not a legitimate claim for refund. The amended return 

did not satisfy § 7422(a), the court reasoned, because it “was not an honest and genuine 

endeavor to satisfy the law.” Accordingly, the court dismissed the suit. 

On appeal the Gillespies argue that the district court erred in concluding that 

their amended return was invalid and did not satisfy § 7422(a). They contend that, 

because they did not make an explicit tax-protestor argument in their amended return, 

the court could not declare it to be frivolous or assume that it was not “an honest and 

genuine endeavor.” The government counters, repeating its position in the district 

court, that the Gillespies’ amended return was too frivolous to constitute a claim for 

Case: 16-1465 Document: 24 Filed: 11/01/2016 Pages: 3
No. 16-1465 Page 3 

refund and, for that reason, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. And even if the 

defect is not jurisdictional, the government continues, the court correctly concluded that 

the Gillespies’ amended complaint failed to satisfy § 7422(a). 

The Gillespies do not respond to the government’s renewed argument that 

§ 7422(a) is jurisdictional, though we note that the Supreme Court’s most recent 

discussion of § 7422(a) does not describe it in this manner, see United States v. Clintwood 

Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. 1, 4–5, 11–12 (2008). And other recent decisions by the 

Court construe similar prerequisites as claims-processing rules rather than jurisdictional 

requirements, see, e.g., United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625, 1632–33 (2015) 

(concluding that administrative exhaustion requirement of Federal Tort Claims Act is 

not jurisdictional); Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154, 157 (2010) (concluding 

that Copyright Act’s registration requirement is not jurisdictional); Arbaugh v. Y&H 

Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 504 (2006) (concluding that statutory minimum of 50 workers for 

employer to be subject to Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not jurisdictional). These 

developments may cast doubt on the line of cases suggesting that § 7422(a) is 

jurisdictional. See, e.g., United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 601–02 (1990); Greene-Thapedi 

v. United States, 549 F.3d 530, 532–33 (7th Cir. 2008); Nick’s Cigarette City, Inc. v. 

United States, 531 F.3d 516, 520–21 (7th Cir. 2008). 

Regardless, the district court was correct that the Gillespies’ amended return was 

frivolous and did not satisfy § 7422(a). As noted, a “properly executed” amended return 

constitutes a claim for refund, see 26 C.F.R. § 301.6402–3(a)(5); Curry v. United States, 

774 F.2d 852, 855 (7th Cir. 1985), but a return is not valid if it lacks “an honest and 

reasonable intent to supply the information required by the tax code,” United States v. 

Moore, 627 F.3d 830, 835 (7th Cir. 1980); see In re Payne, 431 F.3d 1055, 1057 (7th Cir. 

2005). We have observed that in cases involving tax protestors “it is obvious that there 

is no ‘honest and genuine’ attempt to meet the requirements of the code.” Moore, 627 

F.3d at 835. A valid claim for refund also “must set forth in detail each ground upon 

which a credit or refund is claimed and facts sufficient to apprise the Commissioner of 

the exact basis thereof.” 26 C.F.R. § 301.6402–2(b)(1). The Gillespies’ assertion that the 

definitions of “wages,” “employee,” and “employer” somehow entitled them to a 

refund of all the taxes on some $82,000 in earnings is frivolous and does not meet these 

requirements. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 16-1465 Document: 24 Filed: 11/01/2016 Pages: 3