## Facts

- Remedios Ebert was the widow of a member of the United States military.
- Between 1999 and approximately the middle of 2001, Ebert received payments under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).
- Ebert paid about $4,887 in federal income tax on the SBP payments.
- In July 2001, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) notified Ebert that she was entitled to Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) retroactive to February 1, 1999.
- DIC payments were not subject to federal income tax.
- In February 2002, Ebert sent a letter to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requesting a refund of tax paid on the SBP payments because she had retroactively qualified for nontaxable DIC; she included an IRS Form 1042-S reflecting withholding from the SBP payments.
- In October 2003, Ebert sent a second letter to the IRS and included a copy of her 2001 federal tax return reflecting tax withheld from SBP payments in 2001.
- In February 2004, Ebert, proceeding pro se, filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims seeking a refund of the $4,887.
- The United States moved for summary judgment; Ebert filed a submission the court treated as a cross-motion for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Ebert’s correspondence with the IRS constituted a “duly filed” administrative claim for refund sufficient to satisfy 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a) and applicable Treasury Regulations.
2. If Ebert did not file a proper administrative refund claim, whether the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction over her tax-refund suit.
3. Whether the statutory time limits governing refund claims and the amount recoverable (26 U.S.C. § 6511) barred any refund for the years at issue.

## Decision

- The Court of Federal Claims granted the United States’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Ebert’s complaint.
- The court held that Ebert had not satisfied the statutory prerequisites for a tax-refund suit because she did not file a proper administrative claim for refund with the IRS.
- Because the administrative-claim requirement was not met (and could not be cured in litigation), the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to award the requested refund.

## Legal Principles

- A federal tax-refund action may not be maintained unless the taxpayer first files a duly filed administrative claim for refund with the IRS. (26 U.S.C. § 7422(a))
- The administrative refund claim must meet regulatory requirements, including sufficient detail to apprise the IRS of the basis for the refund and required verification. (Treas. Reg. § 301.6402-2)
- Statutory time limits control both when a refund claim must be filed and, in many situations, how much of an overpayment may be recovered. (26 U.S.C. § 6511)
- Although DIC is generally excluded from gross income and SBP annuity payments are generally taxable, entitlement to a refund in court still depends on meeting the Internal Revenue Code’s claim-filing and timing requirements.

## Conclusion

In *Ebert v. United States*, a military widow sought a refund of income tax paid on taxable SBP benefits after the VA awarded her retroactive, nontaxable DIC; the Court of Federal Claims entered summary judgment for the United States, ruling that the suit could not proceed because Ebert had not filed a proper administrative refund claim as required by the Internal Revenue Code.


Ebert v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 287 (2005)