Legal Opinion

Haas v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided September 20, 2012No. 12-51 TPublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
  4. Karen S. Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exchange ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
  5. United States v. DalmSupreme Court of the United States · 1990

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Martti v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
  2. Albemarle Corporation & Subsidiaries v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
  3. Cassinelli v. Cassinelli (In re Cassinelli), California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  4. Clean Fuel Llc v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
  5. 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.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API