Commissioner of Internal Revenue - v. Robert F. Lundy - Corrected Version - No.94-1785

Sep 19, 2026

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Robert F. Lundy, corrected version, presents oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court on the limits of the tax court’s jurisdiction to award tax refunds. The dispute focuses on how Internal Revenue Code sections 6512(b)(3) and 6511(b)(2) constrain refund amounts and require statutory treatment of refund claims. The record addresses jurisdictional limits, the effect of the notice of deficiency mailing date, and whether refund claims must be filed formally or treated as filed for purposes of the statutes.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages56

Reading Time20 min

AccessFree to download

Proceedings

Oral Argument and Jurisdictional Limits

Questioning on Refund Claim Treatment

Discussion of Refund Scope under 6512 and 6511

OF THE UNITED STATES CAPTION: COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.Petitioner v.ROBERT F.LUNDY CASE NO: No.94-1785 PLACE: Washington,D.C. DATE: Monday,November 6,1995 PAGES: 1-55 CORRECTED VERSION ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY111114TH STREET,N.W. WASHINGTON,D.C.20005-5650 202289-2260 .69 N-4 P2:24 SUPRME COURT.U.S MAR5HA,3治CE RFCEIVE 1IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 2- - - - - - - - -X 3COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL 4REVENUE,CORRECTED VERSION Petitioner 5 6 No.94-1785 V. 7ROBERT F.LUNDY 8 -X 9Washington,D.C. 10Monday,November 6,1995 11The above-entitled matter came on for oral 12argument before the Supreme Court of the United States at13 10:02 a.m. 14 APPEARANCES: 15KENT L.JONES ESQ.,Assistant to the Solicitor General, 16Department of Justice,Washington,D.C.;on behalf of17the Petitioner. 18GLENN P.SCHWARTZ,ESQ.,Chicago,Illinois;on behalf of19the Respondent. 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.1111 FOURTEENTH STREET,N.W.SUITE 400 WASHINGTON,D.C.20005(202)289-2260(800)FOR DEPO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 1P R O C E E D I N G S (10:02 a.m.) 2 3CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: We'll hear argument 4now in Number 94-1785,Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.5Robert F.Lundy. 6 Mr.Jones. 7ORAL ARGUMENT OF KENT L.JONES 8ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 9MR.JONES:Mr.Chief Justice and may it please 10 the Court: 11The tax court is an Article I court of limited12 jurisdiction. This case concerns the limitations on the13jurisdiction of the tax court to award refunds. 14When a taxpayer commences a suit in tax court to15 review an asserted deficiency,the court may then also16 determine whether an overpayment was made. Section 17 6512(b)(3)of the Internal Revenue Code,however,provides18 three detailed jurisdictional limits on the amount of the19 refund that the court may award. 20Under section 6512(b)(3)(A),the court may award21 amounts paid after the notice of deficiency is issued. 22 Under 6512(b)(3)(C),the court may award amounts for which 23 a claim for refund was made before the notice of 24 deficiency was issued,but when,as in this case,there 25 was neither subsequent payment nor a prior refund claim, 3 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.1111 FOURTEENTH STREET,N.W.SUITE 400 WASHINGTON,D.C.20005(202)289-2260(800)FOR DEPO 1 section 6512(b)(3)(B),which this case concerns,limits2 the jurisdiction of the tax court to award amounts that3 would be refundable under 6511(b)(2)if on the date the4 notice of deficiency was issued a claim for refund had5 been filed.6In turn,6511(b)(2)allows a refund of amounts7 paid within 3 years prior to the claim for refund only if8 the claim for refund was made within 3 years from the time9 of the taxpayer's return,but when --10QUESTION: Mr.Jones,in subsection(B)that11 you're referring to it says that no credit or refund will12 be allowed unless it was paid within the period which13 would be applicable under 6511(b)(2)(C),or if on the date14 of the mailing of the notice of deficiency a claim had15 been filed,whether or not filed. Now,that language is just incomprehensible. 16 17 What does that parenthetical mean? Does it mean if it18 isn't filed we can deem it to have been filed? 19 MR.JONES: That's --what it means is that, 20 whether or not a claim for refund had actually been filed, 21 the court is to apply these statutes as if a claim for 22 refund was filed on that date. That was --no one has 23 doubted,I think,that that is the meaning of that 24 provision. 25 QUESTION: And is that what should be done in 4 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.1111 FOURTEENTH STREET,N.W.SUITE 400 WASHINGTON,D.C.20005(202)289-2260(800)FOR DEPO 二 5 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.1111 FOURTEENTH STREET,N.W.SUITE 400 WASHINGTON,D.C.20005(202)289-2260(800)FOR DEPO 1 jurisdiction to consider a ju

FAQs

What legal issue is the Supreme Court addressing in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Robert F. Lundy?

The case addresses the limitations on the tax court’s jurisdiction to award refunds and how the Internal Revenue Code restricts the refund amounts it may order.

How does section 6512(b)(3)(B) affect the treatment of a refund claim?

It limits the tax court’s jurisdiction by requiring the statutes to be applied as if a refund claim had been filed on the relevant date, whether or not it was actually filed.

Does the tax court require a formal administrative refund claim to award a refund?

The argument distinguishes tax court from district court by stating that, in tax court, there is no requirement of an administrative claim for the court to award a refund based on overpayment grounds.

Sep 19, 2026

Upload by นรินทร์