Thomas A. Forrest, Jamie W. Forrest v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
THOMAS A. FORREST, JAMIE W. FORREST,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2020-1923
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:19-cv-00110-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp.
______________________
Decided: July 8, 2022
______________________
T HOMAS F ORREST , Virginia Beach, VA, pro se.
J AMIE W. F ORREST , Virginia Beach, VA, pro se.
ELISSA HART -M AHAN, Tax Division, United States De-
partment of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appel-
lee. Also represented by BRUCE R. ELLISEN, RICHARD E.
ZUCKERMAN.
______________________
Before REYNA, CHEN, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 20-1923 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2022

-- 1 of 5 --

FORREST v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Pro se Appellants Thomas and Jamie Forrest appeal
the United States Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of
their lawsuit seeking refunds for taxes paid for the 1997
tax year. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed their case
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because it deter-
mined that the Forrests failed to file a timely tax refund
claim with the Internal Revenue Service for the 1997 tax
year. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Thomas Forrest served in the U.S. Navy. In 1997, he
separated from active duty and received a separation pay-
ment of $45,877, of which $12,845.57 was withheld for tax
purposes.1 App’x 1. Subsequently, Mr. Forrest joined the
Navy Reserves for several years, after which he re-joined
active duty with the Navy. App’x 2.
On April 30, 2015, Mr. Forrest retired from active duty
and became eligible for retirement payments. Id. Because
service members cannot receive both separation and retire-
ment pay for the same period of service, the Defense Fi-
nance and Accounting Service determined that the gross
pre-tax amount of Mr. Forrest’s 1997 separation payment
would be deducted from his retirement payments, even
though he had dutifully paid income taxes on that amount
in 1997. Id.; see 10 U.S.C. § 1174(h)(1). Thus, on May 20,
2016, the Forrests filed an amended 1997 tax return seek-
ing to exclude the separation payment as taxable income
and to obtain a refund of $12,838 based on taxes previously
paid. App’x 2; S. App’x 67–68. On January 31, 2017, the
IRS denied the claim, after which the Forrests initiated
this tax refund action in the Court of Federal Claims,
1 Although not material to the outcome on appeal,
the record shows that Forrest received a tax refund of
$1,767.50 for the 1997 tax year. See App’x 2.
Case: 20-1923 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 07/08/2022

-- 2 of 5 --

FORREST v. US 3
seeking to recover $12,838 in overpaid taxes for the 1997
tax year. Id.
The government moved to dismiss the Forrests’ com-
plaint under Court of Federal Claims Rule 12(b)(1) for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction, on the basis that a tax re-
fund request was not timely filed with the IRS prior to the
bringing of the action. App’x 1. The Court of Federal
Claims granted the motion and dismissed the action for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 26 U.S.C.
§§ 6511(a) and 7422(a). App’x 8. The Forrests appeal the
Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the Court of Federal Claims’ legal conclu-
sions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Ca-
sitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, 708 F.3d 1340,
1351 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Est. of Hage v. United States,
687 F.3d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Whether the Court
of Federal Claims properly dismissed an action for lack of
jurisdiction is a question of law, which we review de novo.
Walby v. United States, 957 F.3d 1295, 1298 (Fed. Cir.
2020).
D ISCUSSION
A taxpayer can bring a tax refund action against the
government only after filing a timely refund claim with the
IRS. 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a); United States v. Clintwood
Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. 1, 4–5 (2008) (citing United
States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 609–10 (1990)). To be con-
sidered timely, a refund claim must ordinarily be filed with
the IRS “within 3 years from the time the return was filed
or 2 years from the time the tax was paid,” whichever is
longer. 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a). The Supreme Court has held
that these time limits are jurisdictional and not subject to
any equitable tolling. Dalm, 494 U.S. at 609; United States
v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347, 354 (1997).
Case: 20-1923 Document: 38 Page: 3 Filed: 07/08/2022

-- 3 of 5 --

FORREST v. US 4
Here, the record shows that the Forrests timely filed
joint income tax returns for the 1997 tax year on April 11,
1998, and the taxes withheld from their income were
deemed paid as of April 15, 1998. S. App’x 18, 23–25, 44.
The record also shows that the Forrests first sought a tax
refund for the 1997 tax year on May 20, 2016, when they
filed an amended 1997 tax return with the IRS.
S. App’x 42–43, 67–68. Because their request fell well out-
side the time limits set forth in 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a), the
Court of Federal Claims correctly dismissed this action for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 26 U.S.C.
§ 7422(a).
The arguments raised by the Forrests on appeal do not
change this conclusion. The focus of their appeal is that
26 U.S.C. § 6511(a) and 10 U.S.C. § 1174(h)(1), in combina-
tion, result in an unfair result for veterans like Mr. Forrest
who dutifully paid taxes on a separation payment only to
learn years later that they must pay back the gross sepa-
ration payment before receiving retirement pay. Like the
Court of Federal Claims, we are sympathetic to the For-
rests’ situation; however, we adhere to Supreme Court
precedent that the time limits of § 6511(a) are jurisdic-
tional and not subject to tolling for equitable reasons.
We lastly note that, insofar as the Forrests purport to
challenge § 1174(h)(1)’s requirement to recoup the gross
amount of Mr. Forrest’s separation pay, that requirement
is not at issue in this appeal. Rather, the sole issue pre-
sented is whether there exists any exception to the limita-
tions requirements of § 6511(a) for someone in the Forrests’
situation, which there is not.
CONCLUSION
We hold that the Forrests failed to establish the timely
filing of a tax refund claim for the 1997 tax year, which is
a prerequisite for bringing their tax refund action.
Case: 20-1923 Document: 38 Page: 4 Filed: 07/08/2022

-- 4 of 5 --

FORREST v. US 5
26 U.S.C. §§ 6511(a), 7422(a). The Court of Federal Claims
properly dismissed this action.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 20-1923 Document: 38 Page: 5 Filed: 07/08/2022

-- 5 of 5 --