NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

THOMAS A. FORREST, JAMIE W. FORREST,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2020-1923

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:19-cv-00110-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp.

______________________ 

Decided: July 8, 2022

______________________ 

THOMAS FORREST, Virginia Beach, VA, pro se.

 JAMIE W. FORREST, Virginia Beach, VA, pro se.

 ELISSA HART-MAHAN, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BRUCE R. ELLISEN, RICHARD E.

ZUCKERMAN. 

 ______________________ 

Before REYNA, CHEN, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

Case: 20-1923 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2022
2 FORREST v. US

PER CURIAM. 

Pro se Appellants Thomas and Jamie Forrest appeal 

the United States Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of 

their lawsuit seeking refunds for taxes paid for the 1997 

tax year. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed their case 

for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because it determined that the Forrests failed to file a timely tax refund 

claim with the Internal Revenue Service for the 1997 tax 

year. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Thomas Forrest served in the U.S. Navy. In 1997, he 

separated from active duty and received a separation payment of $45,877, of which $12,845.57 was withheld for tax 

purposes.1 App’x 1. Subsequently, Mr. Forrest joined the 

Navy Reserves for several years, after which he re-joined 

active duty with the Navy. App’x 2.

On April 30, 2015, Mr. Forrest retired from active duty

and became eligible for retirement payments. Id. Because

service members cannot receive both separation and retirement pay for the same period of service, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service determined that the gross

pre-tax amount of Mr. Forrest’s 1997 separation payment

would be deducted from his retirement payments, even 

though he had dutifully paid income taxes on that amount 

in 1997. Id.; see 10 U.S.C. § 1174(h)(1). Thus, on May 20, 

2016, the Forrests filed an amended 1997 tax return seeking to exclude the separation payment as taxable income 

and to obtain a refund of $12,838 based on taxes previously 

paid. App’x 2; S. App’x 67–68. On January 31, 2017, the 

IRS denied the claim, after which the Forrests initiated 

this tax refund action in the Court of Federal Claims, 

1 Although not material to the outcome on appeal, 

the record shows that Forrest received a tax refund of 

$1,767.50 for the 1997 tax year. See App’x 2.

Case: 20-1923 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 07/08/2022
FORREST v. US 3

seeking to recover $12,838 in overpaid taxes for the 1997 

tax year. Id.

The government moved to dismiss the Forrests’ complaint under Court of Federal Claims Rule 12(b)(1) for lack 

of subject-matter jurisdiction, on the basis that a tax refund request was not timely filed with the IRS prior to the 

bringing of the action. App’x 1. The Court of Federal 

Claims granted the motion and dismissed the action for 

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 

§§ 6511(a) and 7422(a). App’x 8. The Forrests appeal the 

Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the Court of Federal Claims’ legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, 708 F.3d 1340, 

1351 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Est. of Hage v. United States, 

687 F.3d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Whether the Court 

of Federal Claims properly dismissed an action for lack of 

jurisdiction is a question of law, which we review de novo. 

Walby v. United States, 957 F.3d 1295, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 

2020).

DISCUSSION

A taxpayer can bring a tax refund action against the 

government only after filing a timely refund claim with the 

IRS. 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a); United States v. Clintwood 

Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. 1, 4–5 (2008) (citing United 

States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 609–10 (1990)). To be considered timely, a refund claim must ordinarily be filed with 

the IRS “within 3 years from the time the return was filed 

or 2 years from the time the tax was paid,” whichever is 

longer. 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a). The Supreme Court has held 

that these time limits are jurisdictional and not subject to 

any equitable tolling. Dalm, 494 U.S. at 609; United States 

v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347, 354 (1997).

Case: 20-1923 Document: 38 Page: 3 Filed: 07/08/2022
4 FORREST v. US

Here, the record shows that the Forrests timely filed 

joint income tax returns for the 1997 tax year on April 11, 

1998, and the taxes withheld from their income were 

deemed paid as of April 15, 1998. S. App’x 18, 23–25, 44. 

The record also shows that the Forrests first sought a tax 

refund for the 1997 tax year on May 20, 2016, when they 

filed an amended 1997 tax return with the IRS. 

S. App’x 42–43, 67–68. Because their request fell well outside the time limits set forth in 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a), the 

Court of Federal Claims correctly dismissed this action for 

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 

§ 7422(a).

The arguments raised by the Forrests on appeal do not 

change this conclusion. The focus of their appeal is that 

26 U.S.C. § 6511(a) and 10 U.S.C. § 1174(h)(1), in combination, result in an unfair result for veterans like Mr. Forrest 

who dutifully paid taxes on a separation payment only to 

learn years later that they must pay back the gross separation payment before receiving retirement pay. Like the 

Court of Federal Claims, we are sympathetic to the Forrests’ situation; however, we adhere to Supreme Court 

precedent that the time limits of § 6511(a) are jurisdictional and not subject to tolling for equitable reasons. 

We lastly note that, insofar as the Forrests purport to 

challenge § 1174(h)(1)’s requirement to recoup the gross 

amount of Mr. Forrest’s separation pay, that requirement 

is not at issue in this appeal. Rather, the sole issue presented is whether there exists any exception to the limitations requirements of § 6511(a) for someone in the Forrests’ 

situation, which there is not.

CONCLUSION

We hold that the Forrests failed to establish the timely 

filing of a tax refund claim for the 1997 tax year, which is 

a prerequisite for bringing their tax refund action. 

Case: 20-1923 Document: 38 Page: 4 Filed: 07/08/2022
FORREST v. US 5

26 U.S.C. §§ 6511(a), 7422(a). The Court of Federal Claims 

properly dismissed this action.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 20-1923 Document: 38 Page: 5 Filed: 07/08/2022