This comports with § 6511(h), which allows an estate to invoke financial disability to excuse a late refund claim when the decedent suffered from a financial disability, not the administrator of the estate. See Estate of Rubinstein v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 640, 642 (2011) (considering whether decedent's alleged financial disability tolled the time for estate to seek a refund); Estate of Kirsch v. United States, 265 F. Supp. 3d 315, 322 (W.D.N.Y. 2017) (same). Therefore, Carter may not invoke her financial disability to toll the time for the Estate's refund claim, and thus, § 6511(a) bars the Estate's refund claim because it was not timely filed administratively.
Next, the plaintiff seeks summary judgment for a finding that, even if the IRS's determination of his 2007 tax refund application does not preclude a different finding for his 2006 and 2008 tax refund applications, further inquiry into this matter should not be permitted because he complied with the requirements to be eligible for financial disability. He argues that because he provided the information required by IRS regulations he is entitled to a finding that he was financially disabled. The United States Court of Federal Claims, in Estate of Rubinstein v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 640 (2011), rejected a similar argument: Section 6511(h)(2)(A) provides that an individual "shall not be considered to have such an impairment unless proof of the existence thereof is furnished in such form and manner as the Secretary may require."
To prove an impairment and suspend the limitations on refund claims, the Secretary requires "a written statement by a physician." Rev. Proc. 99-21, 1999-1 C.B. 960; see Estate of Rubinstein v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 640, 640 (Fed. Cl. 2011). Williams failed to submit a doctor's note with the initial refund claim and during administrative appeal of the refund claim denial.
However, § 6511(h) "permits the suspension of the limitations period while a taxpayer is unable to manage his or her financial affairs due to a disability." Estate of Rubinstein v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 640, 651 (Fed. Cl. 2011). Section 6511(h) provides:
The court may apply interpretations of the federal rule by analogy. See, e.g., Wheeler v. United States, 11 F.3d 156, 157 n. 1 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Estate of Rubinstein v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 640, 645 n. 3 (2011); Renda Marine, Inc. v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 57, 63 n. 9 (2003). The government's additional interrogatories are formulated as a series of accounting calculations that the government wishes Sikorsky to perform.