Scott Gillespie v. United States, 670 F. App'x 393

Scott and Debra Gillespie filed an amended 2009 federal income tax return in April 2013 reducing reported taxable income from $82,499 to $0 and claiming a full refund.
On the amended return they cited provisions defining "wages," "employee," and "employer" (IRC sections 3401(a), 3121(a), 3401(c), 3401(d)) as the basis for their revision.
The IRS did not process the amended return or issue a refund, so the Gillespies sued the United States for a refund in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
The government moved to dismiss, arguing the amended return was not a valid claim for refund under 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a) because it was frivolous and did not honestly attempt to comply with the tax code.
The district court dismissed the suit, concluding the amended return was not an "honest and genuine" claim for refund and thus did not satisfy § 7422(a).
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the amended return was frivolous, failed to state the grounds/facts required for a refund claim, and therefore did not meet § 7422(a) requirements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Gillespies’ amended return constituted a valid claim for refund under § 7422(a)	Amended return is a proper claim for refund; did not explicitly make a tax-protester argument	Return was frivolous, not an honest/genuine attempt, so not a § 7422(a) claim; jurisdictional defect or failure to exhaust administrative remedies	Held: Return was frivolous and not a valid claim for refund under § 7422(a); dismissal affirmed
Whether § 7422(a) is jurisdictional	(Not argued on appeal)	Argued § 7422(a) bars suit for lack of a filed claim (jurisdictional)	Court noted recent Supreme Court decisions cast doubt on treating § 7422(a) as jurisdictional but affirmed dismissal on the merits because the return was not valid
Whether the amended return stated detailed grounds/facts required for a refund claim	Claimed statutory definitions of "wages/employee/employer" justified refund of all taxes on earned income	Return failed to set forth detailed grounds and facts sufficient to apprise the Commissioner	Held: Claim did not set forth required detail; frivolous and insufficient
Whether frivolous tax-protester arguments can constitute a claim for refund	Gillespie: absence of explicit protest language means court cannot declare the return frivolous	Government: substance controls; return’s premise (wages not taxable) is frivolous regardless of wording	Held: Substance shows a tax-protester theory; not an honest/genuine attempt and thus invalid

United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. 1 (discusses § 7422(a) and claim-filing prerequisites)
United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (administrative-exhaustion rules may be claims-processing, not jurisdictional)
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (statutory prerequisites not always jurisdictional)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (distinguishing jurisdictional requirements from claim-processing rules)
United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596 (earlier case treating § 7422(a) as jurisdictional)
Greene-Thapedi v. United States, 549 F.3d 530 (7th Cir.) (discusses § 7422(a) jurisdictional line)
Nick's Cigarette City, Inc. v. United States, 531 F.3d 516 (7th Cir.) (treatment of § 7422(a))
Curry v. United States, 774 F.2d 852 (return properly executed can constitute a claim for refund)
United States v. Moore, 627 F.3d 830 (7th Cir.) (return invalid if lacking honest and reasonable intent)
In re Payne, 431 F.3d 1055 (7th Cir.) (same principle regarding protestor returns)