Court Opinion

ID: 9489053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:04:13.877192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:17.247003
License: Public Domain

MAYER, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
This case is controlled by United States v. Dakn, 494 U.S. 596, 110 S.Ct. 1361, 108 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), which addressed whether a district court had “jurisdiction” over a tax refund suit filed after the limitation periods of 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a) had passed. Id. at 601,110 S.Ct. at 1364. The Court unequivocally stated that “unless a claim for refund of a tax has been filed within the time limits imposed by § 6511(a), a suit for refund, regardless of whether the tax is alleged to have been ‘erroneously,’ ‘illegally,’ or ‘wrongfully collected,’ §§ 1346(a)(1), 7422(a), may not be maintained in any court” Id. at 602, 110 S.Ct. at 1365. That means the Court of Federal Claims did not have jurisdiction.