Maine Medical Center v. United States
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13978
| D. Me. | 2011Background
- MMC seeks a refund of FICA taxes paid in 2001 and challenges timeliness of filing; government asserts lack of delivery and jurisdiction.
- MMC attempted to rely on a combination of 7502(a)(1) and the mailbox rule, plus extrinsic evidence, to prove timely mailing.
- MMC acknowledges no evidence that the IRS actually received the 2001 claim or a postmark for the mailing, nor certified/registered mail receipts for the filing.
- The court held a discovery conference; the government argued the requested discovery was unduly burdensome and irrelevant because of lack of timely filing.
- The magistrate assumed, for purposes of resolution, that the First Circuit might view §7502 as non-exclusive, but ultimately denied MMC’s motion to compel discovery.
- The court concluded MMC cannot prove timely filing under §7502(a)(1) and thus lacks jurisdiction over the 2001 refund claim, denying the discovery petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §7502(a)(1) can be satisfied with extrinsic evidence | MMC argues extrinsic evidence may supplement §7502(a)(1) to prove timeliness. | Government contends §7502(a)(1) requires actual delivery and lacks proof of delivery. | MMC cannot rely on §7502(a)(1); no proof of delivery. |
| Whether MMC is entitled to discovery to test the government's claim | MMC seeks discovery testing the assertion that MMC's 2001 claim was never received by the IRS. | Government requires prima facie proof of timely filing before discovery on merits is allowed. | Discovery denied; no prima facie case shown. |
| Whether Wood and Anderson permit a relaxed evidentiary standard for timeliness | MMC relies on Wood/Anderson to permit extrinsic proof of timely mailing. | Court should follow controlling precedents requiring postmark or actual delivery evidence; Wood is distinguishable and not controlling here. | Wood/Anderson do not establish timeliness in this case; no postmark or delivery shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n-Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n Pension Fund v. Commissioner, 523 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2008) (timely filing burden and statutory framework under §7502)
- Wood v. Commissioner, 909 F.2d 1155 (8th Cir. 1990) (postmark proof and delivery requirements under §7502; dissent criticized majority view)
- Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487 (9th Cir. 1992) (§7502 does not preclude common-law mailbox rule; earlier reasoning limited)
- Carroll v. Commissioner, 71 F.3d 1228 (6th Cir. 1995) (mailbox rule and timing; delay in delivery considerations)
- Sorrentino v. IRS, 383 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2004) (strong evidence of mailing;465 standards for extrinsic proof)
- Crook v. Commissioner, 173 F. App'x 653 (10th Cir. 2006) (extrinsic evidence limitations for timely filing under mailbox rule)