Abston v. Commissioner
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18492
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Abston timely filed a refund claim after the three-year lookback period under 26 U.S.C. § 6511(b)(2)(A) due to a financial-disability argument.
- The IRS denied the refund, noting the claim must be filed within three years of its due date, with the extent of the lookback affected by the disability tolling.
- Abston sought judicial review after tax-year 2002; she had deferred filing until February 2007 to address student-loan obligations.
- The IRS later advised that financial disability exceptions require documentation; Abston received warnings about needed evidence during administrative proceedings.
- Revenue Procedure 99-21 prescribes the form and evidence (including a physician’s statement) to prove financial disability for § 6511(h)(2)(A).
- Abston did not submit a physician’s statement with her initial claim or during appeal, despite explicit IRS requirements, and the district court granted summary judgment for the Government.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to submit physician statement bars extension under § 6511(h). | Abston argues failure to submit the statement should not defeat suspensive tolling. | United States contends proof must be furnished as required by § 6511(h)(2)(A) and Revenue Procedure 99-21. | Yes; failure to submit the physician statement bars the disability-tolling claim. |
| Whether the district court can independently determine financial disability for tolling. | Abston seeks de novo judicial determination of financial disability after submission of medical records. | Court cannot substitute its own finding; discretion lies with the Secretary when procedural requirements are unmet. | No; district court may not make an independent determination. |
| Whether the claim was duly filed under § 6511(h)(2)(A) and thus capable of tolling. | Abston contends substantial compliance with disability evidence suffices to toll. | Proper form and evidence, as required by Revenue Procedure 99-21, must be supplied. | Claim not duly filed; no tolling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commissioner v. Lundy, 516 U.S. 235 (1996) (nonstatutory tolling of limitations rejected)
- United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347 (1997) (nonstatutory tolling barred; statutory framework applies)