Mr. Lovett then filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims. Before the United States answered the complaint, the court sua sponte held that the period for filing a refund claim had expired and dismissed the case for absence of subject matter jurisdiction. This appeal followed. Thus it was inaccurate to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. However, as we shall discuss, the court correctly held that the claim for refund was barred, based on the limitations period set in the Internal Revenue Code.
Dismissal based on application of a statute of limitations is subject to plenary review.
In reviewing dismissal on the pleadings the factual allegations of the complaint are taken as true. Thus the general rule applies, and the period of limitations will not be tolled for filing a claim for refund of a tax that has been paid or overpaid in error. On this precedent, the decision in St. Clair provides no basis for tolling the period of limitations applicable to Mr. Lovett's tax return for 1984. Mr. Lovett raises the argument of equity. However, the Court has made clear that in the case of a tax paid or overpaid in error, relief is not available if the limitations period for credit or refund has run.