Document: 519 U.S. 347117 S.Ct. 849136 L.Ed.2d 818 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Marian BROCKAMP, Administrator of the Estate Stanley B. McGill, Deceased. No. 95-1225. Supreme Court United States Argued Dec. 3, 1996. Decided Feb. 18, 1997*. Syllabus ** After taxpayer in each these cases paid Internal Revenue Service money he did not owe, (or his representative) submitted an administrative refund claim several years past end applicable filing period set forth §6511 Code 1986. Each asked court to extend statutory for "equitable'' reason, namely that had a mental disability (senility or alcoholism) caused delay. Such reason is mentioned §6511, but, both cases, Ninth Circuit read statute as if it contained implied "equitable tolling'' exception. It then applied equity principles case, found those justified tolling period, and permitted actions proceed. Held: Congress intend doctrine apply §6511's time (and related amount) limitations tax claims. The taxpayers misplace their reliance on Irwin v. Department Veterans Affairs, 498 89, 94-96, 111 453, 456-458, 112 435. Even assuming, they contend, suit private restitution are sufficiently similar warrant asking Irwin's negatively phrased question-Is there good believe want equitable against Government?-there strong reasons answering question Government's favor. Section 6511 sets its highly detailed technical manner, reiterates them times different ways, imposes substantive limitations, explicit exceptions basic limits do include tolling.'' To such into provisions would require one assume exception virtually every number appears section's amount recovery-a kind which no direct precedent. There counter-indications congressional intent. Reading could create serious problems by forcing IRS respond to, perhaps litigate, large numbers late That fact suggests that, at least, likely have wanted decide explicitly whether, just where when, expand statute's periods, rather than delegate courts generalized power so wherever requires. taxpayers' counter-rebuttal, consisting primarily historical analysis provisions, actually helps argument. Pp. ___-___. 67 F.3d 260 70 120, reversed. BREYER, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, DC, petitioner. Robert F. Klueger, Encino, CA, respondents. Justice BREYER 1 two before us raise single question. Can toll, nonstatutory reasons, claims 1986? We hold cannot. 2 These present circumstances. In case initially thousand dollars owe. filed after relevant doing ended. suffered alcoholism), which, said, explained why delay was fault. And existence disability-a but we assume, permit toll if, only contains See 4 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice Procedure §1056 (2d ed.1987 Supp.1996); see also Wolin Smith Barney, Inc., 83 847, 852 (C.A.7 1996) (defining tolling). 3 contain case. period. (1995); judgt. order reported 120 (1995). All other Circuits considered matter, however, taken opposite view. They held does authorize tolling. Amoco Production Co. Newton Sheep Co., 85 1464 (C.A.10 1996); Lovett States, 81 143 (C.A.Fed.1996); Webb 66 691 (C.A.4 1995); Oropallo 994 F.2d 25 (C.A.1 1993) (per curiam); Vintilla 931 1444 (C.A.11 1991). granted certiorari resolve this conflict. conclude latter correct. rest upon 435 (1990), timeliness employee's lawsuit charging Government employer with discrimination, violation Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. untimely, nevertheless tolled "rule applies "to suits Government, same way applicable'' employers. U.S., 94-95, S.Ct., 456-457. went say "same rebuttable presumption defendants should States.'' Id., 95-96, 457. 5 taxpayers, pointing Irwin, argue sued defendants, e.g., sought from "Money Had Received.'' Keigwin, Cases Common Law Pleading 220 ed. 1934). add given language, must be "presumption'' periods can equitably tolled. And, say, "presumption,'' while "rebuttable,'' has been rebutted. correctly reasons. 6 evaluating argument, willing favorably argument's sake, question: Is apply? But Flora 362 145, 153-154, 80 630, 634-635, 623 (1960) (citing Curtis's Administratrix Fiedler, Black 461, 479, 17 L.Ed. 273 (1863)) (distinguishing common-law collector action assumpsit received); George Moore Ice Cream Rose, 289 373, 382-383, 53 620, 623-624, 77 1265 (1933); Plumb, Tax Refund Suits Against Collectors Revenue, 60 Harv.L.Rev. 685, 687 (1947) (describing fiction solely designed bring court). travel further, along road, 7 unusually emphatic form. Ordinarily statutes use fairly simple often plausibly containing See, §2000e-16(c) (requiring employment discrimination " [w]ithin 90 days receipt notice final [EEOC] . ''). uses language simple. linguistically speaking, cannot easily implicit exceptions. Moreover, ways. says, first, 8 [c]laim any shall within return paid, whichever expires later, paid.'' 26 §6511(a). says 9 [n]o credit allowed made expiration limitation prescribed unless period.'' —§6511(b)(1). 10 point imposing limitations: 11 "If during 3-year exceed portion immediately preceding claim, equal plus extension '' —§6511(b)(2)(A). 12 [i]f claim.'' —§6511(b)(2)(B). 13 reemphasizes when refunds comply "shall erroneous,'' §6514, specifies procedures recovery "erroneous'' payment. —§§6532(b), 7405. addition, limits, very specific §6511(d) (establishing special limit rules operating losses, carrybacks, foreign taxes, self-employment worthless securities, bad debts); Dalm, 494 596, 610, 110 1361, 1369, 108 548 (1990) (discussing mitigation §§1311-1314); §507 1942, 56 Stat. 961 (temporarily wartime). 14 provision appears. work linguistic havoc. interpretation tolling, procedural 6511's detail, iteration forms, listing exceptions, together indicate unmentioned, open-ended, wrote. counter-indications. law, all, normally characterized case-specific reflecting individualized equities. 15 nature underlying subject matter-tax collection-underscores point. processes more 200 million returns year. issues refunds. Dept. Treasury, Service, 1995 Data Book 8-9. claims, accompanied requests close inspection, might turn out lack sufficient justification. H.R. Conf. Rep. 356, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 41 (1926) (deleting excusing deficiencies estates insane deceased individuals because difficulties involved defining incompetence). potential magnitude problem suggest decided pay price occasional unfairness individual (penalizing whose unavoidably delayed) maintain workable enforcement system. At least tells concludes 16 counter-rebuttal consists interesting Code's provisions. try show specific, reflects concern about matters explain some example, terms effort stop keeping open indefinitely through device making series small payments. S.Rep. 398, 68th 33 (1924). make assessment coextensive. H.R.Rep. 2333, 77th 2d 52 (1942). Assuming all so, efforts still seem smaller part larger objective: providing "protection stale demands.'' Cf. Garbutt Oil 302 528, 533, 58 320, 323, 82 405 (1938) (statute bars untimely amendment additional refund). history reveals predecessor like clear limits. §281(b) 1924, ch. 234, 43 301 (4-year overpayment income, war-profits, excess-profits cap amount); §322(b) 1932, 209, 47 242 (2-year corresponding 1954, 68A 808 (adopting current alternative limitations); §810 283 (imposing estate refunds). lacks instance (but cases) On balance, considerations help For limitations. Circuit's decisions 18 Reversed. * Together Scott, court. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499.

Category: 11