Maine Medical Center v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6477
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- MMC sought a tax refund for 2001 FICA taxes; filing deadline was April 15, 2005.
- MMC prepared the refund claim in April 2005 but cannot locate a certified mail receipt or postmark.
- IRS had no record of receiving MMC's 2001 claim; MMC alleged it mailed on the deadline.
- District court denied jurisdictional discovery; MMC could not prove timely filing without discovery.
- MMC dismissed 2002 and 2003 claims; 2001 claim remained at issue for jurisdiction.
- Court analyzed whether §7502 and related rules permit timely filing proof via postmark or delivery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MMC timely filed the 2001 claim | MMC mailed on April 15, 2005; postmark/delivery evidence possible | No actual delivery or postmark evidence; timely filing not shown | MMC failed to prove timely filing; no jurisdiction |
| Application of §7502(a) vs §7502(c) vs extrinsic evidence to prove timely filing | Extrinsic evidence can establish postmark under §7502 | Regulations require actual delivery; extrinsic evidence insufficient | Extrinsic evidence not sufficient; §7502 requires actual delivery or certified mail proof |
| Effect of IRS regulations on proving timely postmark for §7502 | Regulations are not dispositive of the underlying timing issue | Regulations foreclose extrinsic evidence for postmark timing | Regulations foreclose extrinsic evidence; MMC cannot rely on postmark theory |
| Whether MMC should be allowed jurisdictional discovery | Discovery could reveal delivery/postmark evidence from IRS records | No prima facie case of timely filing; discovery unwarranted | District court did not err in denying jurisdictional discovery |
| Impact of diligence requirement on jurisdictional discovery | MMC diligently pursued preparation and mailing efforts | MMC failed to preserve or verify mailing; insufficient diligence | MMC failed to show diligence to warrant discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Phila. Marine Trade Ass'n v. Comm'r, 523 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2008) (timely filing evidence discussed in §7502 context)
- Miller v. United States, 784 F.2d 728 (6th Cir. 1986) (§7502(a) timing after statutory period; delivery importance)
- Wood v. United States, 909 F.2d 1155 (8th Cir. 1990) (extrinsic proof in §7502 context; mailing evidence discussed)
- Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487 (9th Cir. 1992) (extrinsic proof of postmark used in §7502 analysis)
- Washton v. United States, 13 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 1993) (limitations on extrinsic postmark proof in §7502 context)
- Sorrentino v. IRS, 383 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2004) (circuit discussion of §7502 effectiveness and diligence)
- Davis v. United States, 2000 WL 194111 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (extrinsic mailing evidence not sufficient in some §7502 contexts)