Murphy v. United States ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JEANNE C. MURPHY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 95-2006
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CA-94-1214-A)
Submitted: November 30, 1995
Decided: January 30, 1996
Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN,
Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Russell W. Ray, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellant; Jeanne C. Murphy,
Appellant Pro Se. Loretta C. Argrett, Assistant Attorney General,
Gary R. Allen, Gilbert S. Rothenberg, Bridget M. Rowan, Helen F.
Fahey, United States Attorney, Tax Division, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
The Appellant, Jeanne Murphy, appeals the district court's order
dismissing her claims for tax refunds in years 1986, 1987, and 1988.
Murphy received taxable income in those years by receiving a mili-
tary survivor's pension. In 1991, the Board of Veterans Appeals
awarded Murphy tax-exempt benefits administered by the Veterans
Administration in lieu of her military survivor's pension retroactively
to 1986. The Internal Revenue Service denied as untimely Murphy's
claim for refund for these three years based on the tax-exempt portion
of her benefits she had previously received as a fully-taxed pension.
Murphy filed this suit contending that the statute of limitations was
equitably tolled, that veterans benefits are exempt from the statute of
limitations, and that the operation of the statute of limitations is a
denial of due process. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We find our recent decision in Webb v. United States, 66 F.3d 691(4th Cir. 1995), largely dispositive of this action. In Webb, we held
that "there is no presumption of equitable tolling applicable in tax
refund cases, but that even if such a presumption were applicable in
suits for tax refunds, that presumption has been rebutted by a statutory
scheme inconsistent with equitable tolling." Accordingly, Murphy's
refund claims were untimely, and the district court's dismissal was
proper.
Further, Murphy's contentions that the tax-exempt status of veter-
ans benefits makes the statute of limitations inapplicable, and that
applying I.R.C. § 6511 to her claims amounts to a denial of due pro-
cess, are without merit. A tax exemption provides grounds for recov-
ery of tax erroneously paid on exempt income, but the requirements
of § 6511 must be satisfied for a refund to result. Any claim for
refund must be filed within three years from the time the return was
filed or two years from the time the tax is paid, whichever is later.1
_________________________________________________________________
1 I.R.C. § 6511(a).
2
No refund is allowed after the expiration of the time period.2 Compli-
ance with the statutory conditions for tax refund claims cannot be
excused because other statutes have exempted the income that is sub-
ject to the claim.
Congress recognized that by establishing a filing deadline there
would be some meritorious claims that fail because of the limitations
bar.3 Statutory limitations on filing claims for refunds are an essential
element of tax policy and do not constitute a denial of due process.4
Further, Murphy could have avoided the bar of the statute of limita-
tions by filing a protective claim asserting that in the event she was
awarded tax-exempt veterans benefits in lieu of a taxable pension, she
would claim a refund for taxes paid.5
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
2 I.R.C. § 6511(b).
3 See Rothensies v. Electric Storage Battery Co., 329 U.S. 296, 301-02
(1946).
4 Id.5 See United States v. Kales, 314 U.S. 186, 195 (1941).
3