Robert Stocker, II v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1089
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Stockers seek refund of about $64,000 for 2003 taxes; initial 2003 return filed Oct 15, 2004.
- Stockers’ amended 2003 return mailed Oct 15, 2007; IRS later asserts it was received Oct 25, 2007, with a postmark Oct 19, 2007.
- IRS denies refund as untimely under 26 U.S.C. §6511(a); district court dismisses for lack of jurisdiction.
- Stockers allege timely filing via extrinsic evidence and spoliation facts (lost envelope).
- District court agrees with Government that timely filing not established under §7502 and related law; appellate court affirms.
- Concludes Miller governs and the extrinsic evidence cannot create timeliness; spoliation sanction denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stockers timely filed the amended return for §6511(a) jurisdiction | Stockers rely on extrinsic proof of timely mailing | §7502 and Miller restrict proof to two statutory methods | No; timely filing not shown under §7502 or extrinsic proof. |
| Application of §7502(a)(1) and §7502(c)(1) as exclusive proofs of timely filing | Extrinsic evidence can prove timeliness beyond §7502 | §7502 exclusive; Miller controls; extrinsic evidence not allowed | Exclusive; extrinsic evidence cannot establish timely filing under §7502. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by not imposing spoliation sanctions | IRS losing envelope warranted adverse inference of timely filing | No clear culpable state of mind; sanctions inappropriate | No abuse of discretion; sanctions not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. United States, 784 F.2d 728 (6th Cir. 1986) (two exclusive §7502 exceptions; mailbox rule not available otherwise)
- United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596 (S. Ct. 1990) (suit for refund requires timely filing under §6511(a))
- Carroll v. Comm’r, 71 F.3d 1229 (6th Cir. 1995) (taxpayer risk under regular mail; §7502 acts as a consent to relief)
- Estate of Wood v. Comm’r, 909 F.2d 1155 (8th Cir. 1990) (postmark evidence is systematized; postmark proof is decisive)
- Beaven v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 622 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2010) (spoliation sanctions require culpable state of mind; discretion respected)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (sovereign immunity; claim for refund prerequisite)