Chan v. Commissioner
693 F. App'x 752
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Chan, pro se, sued the Commissioner seeking a refund of 2008 income taxes; the Commissioner moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 6511 and § 7422(a).
- Chan filed his 2008 tax return on October 15, 2009 (after an alleged six‑month extension); he filed two refund claims: October 15, 2012 and April 15, 2013.
- The district court dismissed, finding Chan failed to file a timely refund claim under § 6511.
- Chan argued his first claim was timely (filed three years after his return) and that he was financially disabled under § 6511(h) from 2008–2016; he also sought leave to file certain documents under seal.
- The Tenth Circuit evaluated timeliness under § 6511(a) and (b), and addressed the financial‑disability exception and the unruled motion to seal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of first refund claim under § 6511(a) | Chan: first claim filed 3 years after return, so timely | Commissioner: first claim untimely under § 6511(b) (limits refund to tax paid in prior 3 years) | Court: Claim is timely under § 6511(a) but fails under § 6511(b) because Chan did not allege paying tax in the relevant 3‑year period |
| Timeliness of second refund claim under § 6511(a) | Chan: second claim filed Apr 15, 2013 (contends tolling/extension/ disability) | Commissioner: second claim untimely (filed more than 3 years after return) | Court: Second claim untimely under § 6511(a) (filed >3 years after return) |
| Financial‑disability tolling under § 6511(h) | Chan: was financially disabled 2008–2016; thus tolling applies | Commissioner: requires proof to IRS per § 6511(h) and Rev. Proc. 99‑21; no adequate proof alleged | Court: Dismisses disability claim — Chan did not allege the required physician statement was submitted to IRS, so tolling not shown |
| Motion to file documents under seal | Chan: sought leave to file taxpayer/medical materials under seal | Commissioner: did not contend sealing would affect jurisdictional timeliness | Held: Motion deemed denied but no abuse of discretion; Chan failed to show sealing warranted and sealed filings would not alter timeliness outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Comm’r v. Lundy, 516 U.S. 235 (explains § 6511 timeliness rules and jurisdictional prerequisites for refund suits)
- Richards v. Comm’r, 37 F.3d 587 (holds claim filed with return counts from date of filing even if return was late)
- Omohundro v. United States, 300 F.3d 1065 (same interpretation of § 6511(a))
- Weisbart v. U.S. Dep’t of Treas., 222 F.3d 93 (same interpretation of § 6511(a))
- Abston v. Comm’r, 691 F.3d 992 (district court cannot determine financial disability absent proof presented to IRS)
- United States v. Pickard, 733 F.3d 1297 (standard of review and presumptive public access to judicial records)