Case Name: John E. Borbridge, Theresia A. Borbridge v. The United States
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1982-03-09
Citations: 230 Ct. Cl. 794
Docket Number: No. 274-81T
Parties: John E. Borbridge, Theresia A. Borbridge v. The United States
Judges: Before Friedman, Chief Judge, Davis, and Bennett, Judges.
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 230
Pages: 794–795

Head Matter:
No. 274-81T.
March 9, 1982
John E. Borbridge, Theresia A. Borbridge v. The United States
John E. Borbridge, Theresia A. Borbridge, pro se.
Ellen C. Specker, with whom was Assistant Attorney General Glenn L. Archer, Jr. for defendant. Theodore D. Peyser, of counsel.
Before Friedman, Chief Judge, Davis, and Bennett, Judges.

Opinion:
This is a pro se action to recover income taxes in the amount of more than $2,200, plus statutory interest, for 1976. Defendant moves for summary judgment on the ground that taxpayers are entitled under the refund statute to recover nothing. Plaintiffs have not responded to the Government's motion, and their time to do so has long expired.
Defendant is correct, and we are barred from allowing any recovery. Section 6511(b)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that, at best for taxpayers, any credit or refund shall not exceed the amount of the tax (for which refund or credit is paid) paid within the three years preceding the filing of the claim. In this case, plaintiffs did not file their tax return for 1976-their return constitutes their claim for refund for that year-until May 14, 1980. Because the tax claimed had been deducted and withheld, section 6513(b)(1) requires that it be deemed to have been paid on April 15, 1977. This is more than three years prior to the filing of the refund claim. There was no tax for 1976 paid within the required three years.
Under the statute, which is explicit and unqualified, plaintiffs can recover nothing, even though there may have been a personal excuse for their delay. Carroll v. United States, 224 Ct. Cl. 682 (1980); York v. United States, 211 Ct. Cl. 356 (1976).
Without oral argument, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and the petition is dismissed.