United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
MARK W. HARRISON and ELLEN C. HARRISON, Plaintiffs,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE COMMISSION sic OF INTERNAL REVENUE, and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM M. CONLEY DISTRICT JUDGE
Mark W. and Ellen C. Harrison seek a refund of an alleged
overpayment for federal tax year 2012. 26 U.S.C. §§
6422, 6511. Before the court is defendants' motion to
dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. (Dkt.
#11.) For the reasons that follow, the court
will grant defendants' alternative motion for summary
judgment, finding that plaintiffs' claimed overpayment of
taxes falls outside of the statutory cutoff for claiming a
initial matter, defendants move to dismiss under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint fails
to include necessary factual allegations about the payment of
the tax at issue, and whether any portion of the payment
occurred within the three-year statute limitation. Defendants
also submit information outside of the pleadings in the form
of a declaration of an IRS Revenue Advisor and certified IRS
records (dkt. #13), inviting the court to convert the motion
to one for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs are in
fact time-barred from recovering any alleged overpayment.
Because plaintiffs responded to the motion for summary
judgment and submitted their own declaration in opposition to
that motion (dkt. #20), the court will take up
defendants' alternative motion for summary judgment. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d); see also Tri-Gen Inc. v. Int'l
Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO, 433
F.3d 1024, 1029 (7th Cir. 2006) (“Adequate notice is
provided when the moving party frames its motion in the
alternative as one for summary judgment.)
Mark and Ellen Harrison were subject to income tax
withholdings from wages or other income in the amount of $16,
720.48 for tax year 2012. Plaintiffs now allege that they
only owed $9, 334.00 in taxes that year, and, therefore, seek
a refund of $7, 386.48 in withholdings.
did not file a federal income tax return for tax year 2012 on
its initial due date, April 15, 2013. Instead, plaintiffs
sought and received an extension to file their 2012 federal
income tax return until on or before October 15, 2013.
Although plaintiffs state in their brief that they actually
received an extension through October 15, 2016, plaintiffs do
not cite any support for this statement. (Pls.' Opp'n
(dkt. #18) 2.) As importantly, the representation is not
supported by the IRS records. Perhaps plaintiffs intended to
state that they received an extension until October 15, 2013;
regardless, plaintiffs have failed to raise a genuine issue
of material fact as to the actual extension date.
three years later, on Tuesday, October 11, 2016, plaintiffs
mailed their 2012 tax return via certified mail seeking a
refund of taxes withheld. The return was received by the IRS
on Monday, October 17, 2016.
assert, and plaintiffs do not dispute, that the following
three requirements must be met for a successful refund claim:
1) Full payment of the tax at issue;
2) Filing a timely, and sufficient, administrative claim for
refund pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 7422(a), 6511(a);
3) Tax payments must be made within the limitations period
under § 6511(b)(2)(A).
Opening Br. (dkt. #12) 6 (citing Flora v. United
States, 357 U.S. 63, 68-69, 75 (1958), aff'd on
rehearing, 362 U.S. 145 (1990) (requiring full payment of tax
at issue); United States v. Dalm,494 ...