Edgar T. Crismon & Maxine Crismon, His Wife v. United States, 550 F.2d 1205 (9th Cir. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
Edgar T. Crismon & Maxine Crismon, His Wife v. United States, 550 F.2d 1205 (9th Cir. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the internal revenue code, the treasury regulations, and form ... all state specifically that application for tentative carryback adjustment, is not a claim for a credit or refund.”
15 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Group v. United States Virgin Islands (vid, 2012-03-31)
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#10 26 U.S.C. § 6411 cited 1× in this case · 85 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Group v. United States Virgin Islands
D.V.I. · 2012 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the internal revenue code, the treasury regulations, and form ... all state specifically that application for tentative carryback adjustment, is not a claim for a credit or refund.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Miranda v. Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service
E.D. Cal. · 2023 · confidence medium
Co. v. United States, 685 F.2d 277, 279 (9th Cir. 1982) 23 (“filing of a timely claim is jurisdictional for a refund suit and cannot be waived”); Crimson v. United 24 States, 550 F.2d 1205, 1206 (9th Cir. 1977) (affirming dismissal for lack of jurisdiction where the 25 plaintiffs did “not file[] a proper claim for a refund within the statuary time period”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lewis v. IRS
E.D. Cal. · 2022 · confidence medium
Co. v. United States, 685 F.2d 277 , 279 6 (9th Cir. 1982) (“filing of a timely claim is jurisdictional for a refund suit and cannot be waived”); 7 Crimson v. United States, 550 F.2d 1205, 1206 (9th Cir. 1977) (affirming dismissal for lack of 8 jurisdiction where the plaintiffs did “not file[] a proper claim for a refund within the statuary time 9 period”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wilson v. Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service
E.D. Cal. · 2022 · confidence medium
Co. v. United States, 685 F.2d 277 , 279 27 (9th Cir. 1982) (“filing of a timely claim is jurisdictional for a refund suit and cannot be waived”); 28 Crimson v. United States, 550 F.2d 1205, 1206 (9th Cir. 1977) (affirming dismissal for lack of 1 jurisdiction where the plaintiffs did “not file[] a proper claim for a refund within the statuary time 2 period”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dorothy Yuen v. United States
9th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Co. v. United States, 685 F.2d 277, 279 (9th Cir.1982); Crismon v. United States, 550 F.2d 1205, 1206 (9th Cir.), appeal dismissed, 434 U.S. 807 (1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Northern Life Insurance Company v. United States of America, Northern Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Cross v. United States of America, Defendant-Cross
9th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
Crismon v. United States, 550 F.2d 1205, 1206 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 807 , 98 S.Ct. 38 , 54 L.Ed.2d 65 (1977); Vishnevsky v. United States, 581 F.2d 1249 (7th Cir. 1978). 12 We also dismiss the estoppel claim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Northern Life Insurance v. United States
9th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
Crismon v. United States, 550 F.2d 1205, 1206 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 807 , 98 S.Ct. 38 , 54 L.Ed.2d 65 (1977); Vishnevsky v. United States, 581 F.2d 1249 (7th Cir. 1978).
discussed Cited "see" David H. Bruce v. United States
9th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Crismon v. United States, 550 F.2d 1205, 1206 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 807 , 98 S.Ct. 38 , 54 L.Ed.2d 65 (1977); United States v. Rochelle, 363 F.2d 225, 230-31 (5th Cir. 1966).
cited Cited "see" Morse
Ct. Cl. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Crismon v. United States, 550 F.2d 1205 (9th Cir. 1977).
cited Cited "see, e.g." VDO-ARGO Instruments, Inc. v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Crismon v. United States, 550 F.2d 1205 (9th Cir.1977), holding that an application for a tentative refund did not constitute a proper refund claim.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Edgar T. CRISMON and Maxine Crismon, His Wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
75-3381.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 29, 1977.
550 F.2d 1205
Arthur D. Ehrenreich, argued, Burns, Ferrin & Ehrenreich, Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiffs-appellants., Gilbert E. Andrews, David E. Carmack, Gilbert S. Rothenberg, Jonathan S. Cohen, argued, Attys., Tax Div., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellee.
Hufstedler, Goodwin, Anderson.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Taxpayers Edgar T. Crismon and his wife, Maxine (The Crismons), brought suit in the district court below, seeking a tax refund. They claimed a refund of federal taxes paid in the 1966 tax year. The basis was a net operating loss in the tax year 1969 which they proposed to carry back to the year 1966. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction because the Crismons had not filed a proper claim for a refund within the statutory time period. We affirm.

Under 26 U.S.C. § 6511(d)(2)(A) the Crismons had until the 15th day of the 40th month after the end of the taxable year 1969 to file a claim for a refund. This made the last day to file April 15, 1973. They did not file the proper claim for a refund (Form 843) until September 24, 1973, outside the statutory time limit. The Crismons argue that a Form 1045 (Application for Tentative Refund from Carryback of Net Operating Loss) which was filed on March 6, 1973, was a timely informal claim for a refund. We disagree. The Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 6411(a), the Treasury Regulations (§ 1.6411 — 1(b)(2), and Form 1045 itself all state specifically that Form 1045, Application for Tentative Carryback Adjustment, is not a claim for a credit or refund. See Rock v. United States, 279 F.Supp. 96 (S.D.N.Y.1968). We therefore find that filing of the 1045 Form was not a proper claim for a refund, and that the proper form filed by the Crismons was untimely.

Under 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a), the Crismons are prevented from maintaining a suit in any court for a tax refund until a claim for a refund has been “duly filed.” An untimely refund claim is not “duly filed.” Therefore, the district court properly dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction.

The Crismons’ contention that the IRS has waived the statute of limitations or is[*1207] estopped to assert that defense is without merit.

AFFIRMED.