Haas v. United States
107 Fed. Cl. 1
| Fed. Cl. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff, a 75-year-old veteran, sought VA disability compensation for Agent Orange exposure with claims denied by VA and Board; he was ultimately granted service connection in 2009 after appeals.
- VA Rating Decision on disability occurred December 1, 2009, retroactively converting military retirement pay to disability compensation and making it non-taxable under § 104(a)(4).
- Plaintiff amended federal returns in 2010 seeking refunds for 2001-2009; refunds for 2007-2009 were granted, while 2001-2006 were denied as untimely.
- Plaintiff filed suit January 25, 2012, seeking refunds for 2001-2006 and seeking permission to amend 2001-2006 returns; he attributes delay to Board VA decision timing.
- Defendant partially conceded that refunds for 2005-2006 are timely under § 6511(d)(8) and proposed dismissal of those years by stipulation; remaining issue is whether 2001-2004 refunds are timely.
- Court grants partial motion to dismiss 2001-2004 refunds as barred by statute of limitations, and schedules status conference to process 2005-2006 refunds and costs
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2001-2004 refund claims are time-barred | Has timely extension under § 6511(d)(8) | Extension limited to five years before determination; 2001-2004 not covered | Yes; 2001-2004 claims barred |
| Whether equitable recoupment or mitigation tolled the limitations period | Equitable recoupment/mitigation could suspend limitations | Doctrine does not apply or provide jurisdiction; not an independent basis | No; doctrines inapplicable |
| Whether equitable estoppel bars reliance on the statute of limitations | VA misconduct caused delay warranting estoppel | No misrepresentation by government agent shown; estoppel not warranted | No; equitable estoppel does not apply |
| Whether equitable tolling under § 6511(h) applies | Disability tolling should apply due to financial disability | Plaintiff not financially disabled; tolling not available | No; Brockamp prohibits equitable tolling; § 6511(h) not satisfied |
| Whether plaintiff is entitled to costs and whether defendant should pay | Award costs for prevailing party regarding 2005-2006 refunds | Costs follow prevailing party status after full litigation; timing unsettled | Costs potentially warranted for 2005-2006; court to decide after judgment on those years |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. 1 (2008) (timeliness of refund claims governs jurisdiction when § 6511 and 7422 are read together)
- United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596 (1990) (equitable recoupment not a standalone jurisdictional basis)
- United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347 (1997) (statutory limitations under § 6511 cannot be equitably tolled)
- Last v. United States, 37 Fed.Cl. 1 (1996) (equitable recoupment/mitigation assessed with multiple elements)
- Longiotti v. United States, 819 F.2d 65 (4th Cir. 1987) (mitigation provisions require specific conditions to apply)
- Haas v. Peake, 525 F.3d 1168 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (procedural history on veterans benefits and administrative review)