United States v. Brockamp

Media Items
United States v. Brockamp - Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Robert F. Klueger (Argued the cause for the respondent)
Lawrence G. Wallace (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the petitioner)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
95-1225
Petitioner: 
United States
Respondent: 
Brockamp
Consolidation: 
No. ?
Opinion: 
519 U.S. 347 (1997)
Location No location information present.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, United States v. Brockamp , 519 U.S. 347 (1997)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1225)
Facts of the Case: 

Stanley B. McGill, whose estate is administrated by Marion Brockamp, paid the Internal Revenue Service money he did not owe. McGill, or his representative, submitted an administrative refund claim several years past the end of the applicable filing period set forth in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. McGill asked the court to extend the statutory period for an "equitable" reason, namely that he had a mental disability that caused the delay. Although such a reason is not mentioned in the Internal Revenue Code, the Court of Appeals read the statute as if it contained an implied "equitable tolling" exception, which the court found justified, and therefore permitted the actions to proceed.

Question: 

May courts toll, for nonstatutory reasons, the statutory time limitations for filing tax refund claims set forth in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986?

Conclusion: 

No. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court ruled that Congress did not intend the "equitable tolling" doctrine to apply to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986's time limitations for filing tax refund claims. Justice Breyer wrote that allowing such exceptions to the filing deadline "could create serious administrative problems by forcing the IRS to respond to, and perhaps litigate, large numbers of late claims."

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Wrote the majority opinion
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer

Sponsor