The focus is on the claim as a whole, not merely the written component." Estate of Hale v. United States, 876 F.2d 1258, 1262 (6th Cir. 1989) (internal quotations omitted). Shortly after filing Form 1040 for the 1988 tax period, directing that a $26,794 overpayment be applied to 1989, the Kaffenbergers received a notice dated April 15, 1991, that they were entitled to a refund of $26,770.
Moreover, the 1994 letter fails to meet the requirements of an informal claim. See Hale v. United States, 876 F.2d 1258, 1262 (6th Cir. 1989) (noting that informal request for tax refund must apprize I.R.S. that a refund is sought and for certain years). The 1994 letter fails to meet this standard.
So B has, within moments of the accident, a belief approaching certainty that A will sue him, and for how much. Does this mean that the statute of limitations for negligently damaging personal property, which let us say is three years, stops running five minutes after the accident, so that A can if he wishes wait ten years to file his suit? That is the implication of BCS's argument. No case goes so far; the outermost extreme of the informal-claim doctrine consists of cases in which the taxpayer made some communication to the IRS indicating an intention to seek a refund. United States v. Commercial National Bank, supra, 874 F.2d at 1167, 1174; Estate of Hale v. United States, 876 F.2d 1258, 1263 (6th Cir. 1989). The government urges us to hold that the doctrine is never satisfied when the only written evidence of a potential claim is an internal government document.
“An informal claim must have ‘a written component . . . and should adequately apprise the Internal Revenue Service that a refund is sought and for certain years.'” Estate of Hale v. United States, 876 F.2d 1258, 1262 (6th Cir. 1989) (quoting American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. v. United States, 318 F.2d 915, 920 (Ct. Cl. 1963)). “[T]he writing should not be given a crabbed or literal reading, ignoring all the surrounding circumstances which give it body and content.
The focus is on the claim as a whole, not merely the written component." See Kaffenberger, at 955 (citing Estate of Hale v. United States, 876 F.2d 1258, 1262 (6th Cir.1989)). The United States' Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Dkt. 11) should be denied.
"[A] notice fairly advising the Commissioner of the nature of the taxpayer's claim, which the Commissioner could reject because too general or because it does not comply with formal requirements of the statute and regulations, will nevertheless be treated as a claim, where formal defects and lack of specificity have been remedied by the amendment after the lapse of the statutory period" U.S. v. Kales, 314 U.S. at 194 (1941). An informal claim exists where the facts and circumstances demonstrate the IRS was on notice the taxpayer was asserting a right with respect to an overpayment of tax. Estate of Hale v. U.S., 876 F.2d 1258, 1262 (6th Cir. 1989). Here the IRS had sufficient information to make a reasonable investigation and evaluation of the Estate's claim based on the submission of the Will and Blomer's notations on the Original Return relating to the taxes on charitable bequests.
Whether a taxpayer has filed an adequate informal claim is by its nature an extremely contextual question. Estate of Hale v. United States, 876 F.2d 1258, 1262 (6th Cir. 1989). In Mills v. United States, the Eleventh Circuit held that an employer's claim for refund Form 941-C "met the requirements of a written refund notice which [apprised] the IRS that a FICA refund was sought for particular years" sufficient to support an examination into the employee's claim for refund and thereby provide the district court jurisdiction.
The Court, therefore, finds that the informal claim doctrine applies equally in the context of cases turning on Section 6511(b)(2)(A) as it does in cases turning on Section 6511(a). As might be expected, whether a taxpayer has filed an adequate informal claim is by its nature an extremely contextual question.Estate of Hale v. United States, 876 F.2d 1258, 1262 (6th Cir. 1989) ("A court required to determine whether an adequate informal claim has been filed should look at all the facts and circumstances."); United States v. Commercial Nat'l Bank of Peoria, 874 F.2d 1165, 1171 (7th Cir. 1989). Indeed, at least one court has gone so far as to state "no set rules can be elucidated as to what constitutes an adequate informal claim; rather, each case must be determined based on its own unique set of facts."
Although a valid tax return can constitute a claim for a refund, the return must "furnish sufficient information to allow the IRS to make a reasonable and intelligent investigation and evaluation of the taxpayer's claim." Porcaro v. United States, 1999 WL 1249329 at *2 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 25, 1999), quoting Estate of Hale v. United States, 876 F.2d 1258, 1262 (6th Cir. 1989). More particularly, a claim for refund:
The Court therefore concludes that the letter itself is insufficient to constitute an informal claim. SeeEstate of Hale v. United States, 876 F.2d 1258, 1263 (6th Cir. 1989) (taxpayer's election to apply gift taxes to offset estate taxes did not constitute an informal claim because it was not clear from the election alone that there had been any overpayment of taxes). On the other hand, the government does not argue that it was unaware that Dresser intended to seek a refund for the 1985 tax year based on the netting of interest.