Dickow v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17228
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Dickow, as executor of Margaret Dickow's estate, sought a federal estate tax refund of $237,813.48—that was paid October 14, 2003.
- Estate tax return was filed September 30, 2004; refund claim filed September 10, 2007, within the 3-year look-back window of §6511(a).
- Dickow first obtained a six-month automatic extension, moving the filing deadline to April 15, 2004, under Treasury Regulation § 20.6081-1(b).
- Dickow sought a second extension via a modified Form 4768 in March 2004, attempting to extend filing to October 15, 2004; IRS denied filing extension but extended payment anyway.
- Dickow did not file a timely estate tax return by April 15, 2004; IRS later issued notices of delinquency; the estate filed the return on September 30, 2004 and refunded $337,139.81 on November 1, 2004.
- On September 10, 2007, Dickow amended the return to seek an additional $237,813.48 refund; IRS denied on October 15, 2007; district court granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS, dismissing for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether second six-month extension was authorized | Dickow contends § 6081 allows more than one extension via regulations. | IRS regulations limit to one automatic six-month extension and only support limited good-cause extensions; no second extension permitted. | Second extension not authorized; look-back period ends March 10, 2004. |
| Whether § 6511(b)(2)(A) look-back is jurisdictional | Refund timely under look-back due to extended filing window. | Look-back and filing limits are jurisdictional prerequisites to suit. | Look-back period is jurisdictional; claim outside window dismissed. |
| Whether equitable estoppel can defeat § 6511 limitations | IRS's failure to affirmatively deny or notify constitutes estoppel by silence. | Brockamp bars equitable tolling/estoppel for § 6511; no affirmative misconduct here. | Equitable estoppel not available; claim merits dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commissioner v. Lundy, 516 U.S. 235 (1996) (look-back look and timing are jurisdictional prerequisites)
- United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347 (1997) (equitable tolling not allowed for § 6511 limitations)
- Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 704 (2011) (Chevron deference applies to tax regulations; agency interpretations reasonable)
- Oropallo v. United States, 994 F.2d 25 (1993) (equitable tolling not available in § 6511(a) refund cases)
- United States v. Horne, 714 F.2d 206 (1983) (manual does not confer taxpayer rights; agency procedures aid internal administration)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001) (agency interpretation of regulations deserves deference under Mead)
- Ramírez-Carlo v. United States, 496 F.3d 41 (2007) (elements of equitable estoppel; government not liable on silence alone)
- Heckler v. Cmty. Health Servs., 467 U.S. 51 (1984) (government may not be estopped on the same terms as private litigants)