## Facts

- Over several years, the Fishers engaged in a series of commodities transactions on the London Metals Exchange.
- On their 1976 federal income tax return, the Fishers reported ordinary losses from the transactions.
- On their 1977 and 1978 returns, the Fishers reported gains from the transactions as capital gains.
- The IRS investigated the transactions and obtained voluntary consents extending the statute of limitations for assessment for the 1976 and 1977 tax years.
- In 1981, the IRS determined the transactions were a sham and, for tax purposes, should be treated as a single, unified transaction across the relevant years.
- Consistent with that treatment, the IRS issued a notice assessing a deficiency for 1976 and issued notices of overassessment for 1977 and 1978.
- In March 1982, the Fishers filed a petition in the United States Tax Court challenging the 1976 deficiency; they attached the IRS overassessment notices for 1977 and 1978 to the petition.
- The Fishers’ ability to obtain refunds for 1977 and 1978 depended on the outcome of the Tax Court litigation because the transactions had to be treated as one unified transaction for tax purposes.
- The limitations periods for filing administrative refund claims for 1977 and 1978 expired in June 1982 and October 1982, respectively.
- In December 1982—after those deadlines—the Fishers filed a refund suit in federal district court seeking refunds for 1977 and 1978.
- The United States moved to dismiss, arguing the refund suit was barred because the Fishers had not filed timely administrative refund claims for 1977 and 1978.
- The Fishers argued that their March 1982 Tax Court petition, including the attached overassessment notices, functioned as timely informal refund claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fishers’ Tax Court petition challenging the 1976 deficiency, with overassessment notices for 1977 and 1978 attached, constituted timely informal administrative claims for refund for 1977 and 1978.
2. If no timely informal refund claims were made, whether the district court refund suit for 1977 and 1978 had to be dismissed as untimely for failure to satisfy the statutory refund-claim prerequisite to suit.

## Decision

- The court held that the Fishers’ Tax Court petition and attachments did not constitute timely informal refund claims for the 1977 and 1978 tax years.
- Because the Fishers did not file timely administrative refund claims for 1977 and 1978, their later district court refund suit was barred by the applicable limitations rules governing refund claims and refund suits.
- The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss the refund suit.

## Legal Principles

- A taxpayer may not maintain a federal tax refund suit unless the taxpayer first files a timely administrative claim for refund with the IRS for the tax year(s) at issue.
- The limitations periods for refund claims apply even where later events (including related tax litigation) may affect whether a refund is ultimately due.
- The “informal claim” doctrine can treat a defective or nonconforming writing as a claim only if, within the limitations period, the writing fairly notifies the IRS that the taxpayer is requesting a refund for specific year(s) and provides enough information about the basis of the request to allow IRS review.
- A filing directed to litigating a deficiency for one year, without a clear written request for refunds for other years, does not by itself serve as an administrative refund claim for those other years.

## Conclusion

The district court concluded that the Fishers’ Tax Court petition contesting a 1976 deficiency—despite attaching IRS overassessment notices for 1977 and 1978—did not provide the type of timely written notice required to qualify as an informal refund claim for those later years, so the Fishers’ December 1982 refund suit for 1977 and 1978 was dismissed as time-barred.


Fisher v. United States, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15229 (1990)