1. Whether “[t]he Claims Court committed clear error by holding that ‘valid informal claims are only those that [have] not misled the [IRS] and [have been] accepted and treated by the IRS as valid claims. . . .’”
2. Whether “[t]he Claims Court ultimately erred in dismissing Dixon’s net investment income tax claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or alternative, for failure to state a claim for which relief can granted.”
1. “The Claims Court misread Kales as stating ‘that valid informal claims are only those that “[have] not misled the [IRS] and [have been] accepted and treated” by the IRS as valid claims.’ . . . The Supreme Court did not so limit the doctrine.”
2. “In short, Mr. Dixon’s first action in the Claims Court was properly dismissed because the claims, though timely filed, were not ‘duly filed’ under [26 U.S.C.] § 7422(a). By the time Mr. Dixon filed corrected claims with the IRS to cure the identified defects, the time limits for filing with the IRS had passed, unless the corrected claims related back to the earlier claims under the informal-claim doctrine. For the reasons we have given, however, we conclude that the doctrine does not apply here. It follows that the Claims Court properly dismissed the present refund action.”
