Haas v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
SWEENEY, Judge.
Before the court is defendant’s partial motion to dismiss plaintiffs refund claims for tax years 2001-2004 because they are barred by the relevant statute of limitations. Although the delay was not plaintiffs fault, and the fact that he cannot amend his 2001-2004 tax returns is unfortunate, the court’s hands are tied, and it cannot extend the statute of limitations. Therefore, the court finds that plaintiffs claims for tax years 2001-2004 are barred by the relevant statute of limitations, and as a result, the court grants defendant’s partial motion to dismiss.
I.…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Karen S. Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exchange ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- United States v. DalmSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Martti v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
- Albemarle Corporation & Subsidiaries v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
- Cassinelli v. Cassinelli (In re Cassinelli), California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Clean Fuel Llc v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
- Raleigh W. Hall & Margaret E. Hall v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.