Opinion ID: 3011357
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Suits by taxpayers for refund.--

Text: (1) General rule.--No suit or proceeding under section 7422(a) for the recovery of any internal revenue tax, penalty, or other sum, shall be begun before the expiration of 6 months from the date of filing the claim required under such section unless the Secretary renders a decision thereon within that time, nor after the expiration of 2 years from the date of mailing by certified mail or registered mail by the Secretary to the taxpayer of a notice of the disallowance of the part of the claim to which the suit or proceeding relates. (2) Extension of time.--The 2-year period prescribed in paragraph (1) shall be extended for such period as may be agreed upon in writing between the taxpayer and the Secretary. (3) Waiver of notice of disallowance.--If any person files a written waiver of the requirement that he be mailed a notice of disallowance, the 2-year period prescribed in paragraph (1) shall begin on the date such waiver is filed. (4) Reconsideration after mailing of notice.--Any consideration, reconsideration, or action by the Secretary with respect to such claim following the mailing of a notice by certified mail or registered mail of disallowance shall not operate to extend the period within which suit may be begun. (5) Cross reference.--For substitution of 120-day period for the 6- month period contained in paragraph (1) in a title 11 case, see section 505(a)(2) of title 11 of the United States Code. 26 U.S.C. S 6532(a) (1986). 23 S 6532(a) than 42 U.S.C. S 2000e-16(c). Like section 6532(a), section 6532(c) applies only to suits brought against the government, sets forth its time limitations in unusually emphatic form, sets forth explicit exceptions to its basic time limitations (exceptions which do not include equitable tolling), and is a provision of the Internal Revenue Code set forth in Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 66, section 6532, entitled Periods of limitations on suits. Moreover, like section 6532(a), were section 6532(c) equitably tolled, the IRS could be forced to litigate countless, stale claims, thus creating serious administrative problems. These similarities suggest that like the time limitation set forth in section 6532(a), the time limitation set forth in section 6532(c) cannot be equitably tolled. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that a careful reading of Irwin and Brockamp leads ineluctably to the conclusion that Congress did not intend for the time limitation in section 6532(c) to be equitably tolled. Consistent with opinions in our sister circuits, we hold that the failure to file a timely wrongful levy claim prior to the expiration of the time limitation in section 6532(c) deprives the district court of subject matter jurisdiction. Cf. Irwin, 498 U.S. at 91 (We granted certiorari to determine when the 30-day period under S 2000e-16(c) begins to run and to resolve the Circuit conflict over whether late-filed claims are jurisdictionally barred.); Perez v. United States, 167 F.3d 913, 915-18 (5th Cir. 1999) (noting that the Brockamp Court concluded that section 6511 was a jurisdictional time limitation that could not be equitably tolled); RHI Holdings, Inc. v. United States, 142 F.3d 1459, 1461-63 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (holding that like the time limitation in Brockamp, a taxpayer's failure to file an timely claim pursuant to section 6532(a) deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction); Calderon v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, 128 F.3d 1283, 1288 n.4 (9th Cir. 1997) (In [United States v. ]Brockamp , the [Supreme] Court held that a time-limit on filing tax refund claims was a jurisdictional bar, not a tollable statute of limitations.).