Sun Chemical Corp. v. United States

10 Citing cases

  1. Koopmann v. United States

    No. 2021-1329 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 11, 2022)

    This court has held that the "limitations period of § 6511(a) [is] jurisdictional in nature." Greene, 191 F.3d at 1343; see also Sun Chem. Corp. v. United States, 698 F.3d 1203, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("It is a well-established rule that a timely, sufficient claim for a refund is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a refund suit."). While the Claims Court was required to liberally construe the filings of the pro se plaintiffs in this case, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), the pro se plaintiffs still had the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.

  2. Gen. Mills, Inc. v. United States

    957 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    We have held that a taxpayer’s failure to file a timely refund claim with the IRS deprives the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction.Sun Chem. Corp. v. United States , 698 F.2d 1203, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[A] timely, sufficient claim for refund is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a refund suit ....") (citations omitted). No party challenges whether the requirements of § 7422(a) and relevant statutes of limitations in the tax code implicate a court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

  3. Greene v. U.S.

    191 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 3 times

    The court rejected Greene's argument that the July 9, 1990 filing was the first return in which the facts necessary to establish GGAC's phase 3 liability had been established, and therefore that this later return should start the running of the limitations period. Finding the limitations period of § 6511(a) to be jurisdictional in nature, see Sun Chem. Corp. v. United States, 698 F.2d 1203, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is a well-established rule that a timely, sufficient claim for a refund is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a refund suit."), the court dismissed Greene's refund suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The "statute" at issue in Zellerbach was the statute of limitations that governed government assessment actions. It was the precursor to § 6501(a), which currently states that "the amount of any tax imposed by this title shall be assessed within 3 years after the return was filed. . . ."

  4. Estate of Hale v. U.S.

    876 F.2d 1258 (6th Cir. 1989)   Cited 12 times
    Noting that informal request for tax refund must apprize I.R.S. that a refund is sought and for certain years

    In a case in which a taxpayer adequately detailed the facts upon which it claimed taxes had been wrongfully exacted, but based its claim for refund on a contingency, the court found that the taxpayer had not filed a timely informal claim when that contingency did not occur. Sun Chemical Corp. v. United States, 698 F.2d 1203, 1207 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 819, 104 S.Ct. 81, 78 L.Ed.2d 91 (1983). The same conclusion was reached when an estate sent a series of letters to the IRS requesting information to enable it to determine independently whether it had overpaid its taxes.

  5. KSM Fastening Systems, Inc. v. H.A. Jones Co.

    776 F.2d 1522 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 112 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "contempt proceedings . . . are available only with respect to devices previously admitted or adjudged to infringe, and to other devices which are no more than colorably different therefrom and which clearly are infringements of the patent"

    uite clear from the surrounding circumstances that [a contempt proceeding] is required to preserve the integrity of the injunction." This court has addressed issues of res judicata in a number of cases, Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 772 F.2d 860 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Spears v. MSPB, 766 F.2d 520 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Schott Optical Glass, Inc. v. U.S., 750 F.2d 62 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Jackson Jordan, Inc. v. Plasser American Corp., 747 F.2d 1567, 224 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Syntex Opthalmics, Inc. v. Novicky, 745 F.2d 1423, 223 USPQ 695 (Fed. Cir. 1984), vacated and remanded, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1740, 84 L.Ed.2d 807, 225 USPQ 792 (1985); Brown v. U.S., 741 F.2d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Chromalloy American Corp. v. Kenneth Gordon (New Orleans), Ltd., 736 F.2d 694, 222 USPQ 187 (Fed. Cir. 1984); International Order of Job's Daughters v. Lindeburg Co., 727 F.2d 1087, 220 USPQ 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Young Engineers, Inc. v. ITC, 721 F.2d 1305, 219 USPQ 1142 (Fed. Cir. 1983); and Sun Chemical Corp. v. U.S., 698 F.2d 1203 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Note, "To Bind or Not to Bind: Bar and Merger Treatment of Consent Decrees in Patent Infringement Litigation, 74 Columbia Law Review 1332, 1333-38 (1984).

  6. Atlas Glob. Techs. v. ZYXEL Networks Corp.

    CIVIL 6:22-CV-355-ADA (W.D. Tex. May. 9, 2023)

    Defendants' cited authority, that a conditional claim is “not . . . sufficient under law” if the “condition never occur[s],” is therefore unpersuasive. Sun Chemical Corp. v. U.S., 698 F.2d 1203, 1208 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

  7. Ill. Lumber & Material Dealers Ass'n Health Ins. Trust v. United States

    Civil No. 13-CV-715 (SRN/JJK) (D. Minn. Apr. 30, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    "It is a well-established rule that a timely, sufficient claim for refund is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a refund suit." Sun Chem. Corp. v. United States, 698 F.2d 1203, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Courts require strict compliance with the statute of limitations in this context because "'[u]nder settled principles of sovereign immunity, the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit, save as it consents to be sued . . . and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit.'" Stelco Holding Co. v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 101, 104 n.5 (Fed. Cl. 1998) (citing United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 608) (1990) (internal quotations omitted)).

  8. Williams v. United States

    CIVIL ACTION H-12-3401 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 13, 2013)

    A taxpayer's failure to timely file a claim for a refund with the IRS deprives the district court of subject matter jurisdiction. Gustin v. United States, 876 F.2d 485, 488 (5th Cir. 1989); see also Sun Chem. Corp. v. United States, 698 F.2d 1203, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (explaining that a timely refund claim is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a refund suit). Thus, the court must determine whether Williams timely filed his claims for refund with the IRS.

  9. Bartimmo v. U.S.

    525 F. Supp. 2d 879 (S.D. Tex. 2007)   Cited 3 times

    A taxpayer's failure to timely file a claim for a refund with the IRS deprives the district court of subject matter jurisdiction. Gustin v. United States, 876 F.2d 485, 488 (5th Cir. 1989); see also Sun Chem. Corp. v. United States, 698 F.2d 1203, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (explaining that a timely refund claim is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a refund suit). Thus, the Court must determine whether Plaintiffs timely filed their claims for refund with the IRS.

  10. In re Moon

    116 B.R. 75 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1990)   Cited 11 times

    The same holds true for partial summary judgments. Sun Chemical Corp. v. United States, 698 F.2d 1203, 1209 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 819, 104 S.Ct. 81, 78 L.Ed.2d 91 (1983). However, the issue here is whether a partial summary disposition under Michigan's MCR 2.116, not a summary judgment issued by a federal court under F.R.Civ.P. 56, precludes a party in a subsequent federal case from litigating the issue decided in the earlier case.