Court of Federal Claims tosses 2010 tax-refund suit for lack of supporting documents

Leopard v. United States, No. 25-329, 2025 BL 353758, 2025 Us CL Lexis 2842 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 02, 2025), Court Opinion

On October 2, 2025, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted the United States’ motion to dismiss Phillip K. Leopard’s refund suit for the 2010 tax year. Judge David A. Tapp held that Leopard’s administrative refund claim was not “duly filed” because he submitted amended forms without supporting documentation.

The case was dismissed under RCFC 12(b)(6).

Why It Matters

Taxpayers must attach documentation that substantiates the grounds for an amended return or refund claim. Without it, a court will treat the claim as procedurally deficient even if the IRS processed a different year without the same proof.

Key Facts

• Parties: Phillip K. Leopard (plaintiff) vs. United States (defendant).

• Years at issue: 2010 (dismissed) and background references to 2011.

• Posture: Government moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under RCFC 12(b)(6), arguing the administrative claim was not “duly filed.”

• Substitute returns: In 2015 the IRS prepared substitute returns under 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b)(1) after Leopard failed to timely file 2010 and 2011 returns.

• Amounts: By 2019 Leopard owed over $155,000 for 2010; the IRS seized $348,431.67, allocating $155,381 to 2010 and the rest to 2011.

• Refund requests filed: On October 27, 2021, Leopard submitted amended filings seeking a $140,294 refund for 2010 and $186,544 for 2011.

• IRS action: The IRS paid a 2011 refund of $204,571 including interest, but later denied the 2010 claim on February 22, 2023 as time barred.

• Core defect: Leopard’s 2010 amended filing changed income from $228,453 to $55,777 and tax from $77,045 to $15,087 but attached no documentation (e.g., W-2s, 1099s, schedules, receipts).

• Ruling: The court held the lack of documentation failed Treasury’s specificity requirement, so the claim was not “duly filed” and cannot be litigated.

Timeline

• 2010–2011: Returns not timely filed.

• 2015: IRS issues substitute returns for both years under § 6020(b)(1).

• 2019: Leopard’s 2010 balance exceeds $155,000; IRS seizes $348,431.67.

• Oct. 27, 2021: Leopard submits amended returns and refund claims for 2010 and 2011.

• Nov. 12, 2021: IRS receives the 2010 claim.

• Feb. 22, 2023: IRS denies the 2010 claim as untimely.

• Oct. 2, 2025: Court grants the United States’ motion to dismiss.

Court Findings

• “Duly filed” governs adequacy, not jurisdiction: Following Brown and Dixon, whether a refund claim was “duly filed” is a regulatory sufficiency issue addressed via RCFC 12(b)(6), not a jurisdictional bar.

• Specificity and substantiation are required: Treasury regulation § 301.6402-2(b)(1) requires claims to “set forth in detail” each ground and facts sufficient to apprise the Commissioner; unsupported assertions are not enough.

• No waiver by the IRS: The Angelus Milling waiver doctrine did not apply because the IRS denied the 2010 claim on timeliness grounds and did not examine the merits, relax formality, or act upon the claim substantively.

• Case law supports dismissal where documents are missing: Waltner, Diamond, Kiselis, Goldberger, Meissner, and Hamzik confirm that amended returns lacking proof are not “duly filed” and cannot support a refund suit.

• Form 1040-X instructions matter: The court noted the IRS’s instructions to attach supporting materials for amended returns, especially when changing income figures significantly.

• Different years can be treated differently: Acceptance of the 2011 refund without attachments does not bind the IRS for 2010; each tax year stands on its own (Harrah’s Club; Auto Club of Michigan; Hawkins).

• Policy observation: The court acknowledged the inconsistency across years could appear unfair but held it does not alter the legal requirement to substantiate a claim.

Judgment Details

• Disposition: Motion to dismiss granted; complaint dismissed under RCFC 12(b)(6).

• Reason: Administrative refund claim for 2010 was not “duly filed” due to lack of supporting documentation as required by 26 C.F.R. § 301.6402-2(b)(1) and related authority.

• Relief: No monetary award; case closed with direction to enter judgment for the United States.

Outcome

The Court of Federal Claims entered judgment for the United States and dismissed Leopard’s 2010 refund suit.

The Takeaway

To preserve the right to sue for a tax refund, the administrative claim must include documents that substantiate the changes. Big corrections with no attachments are treated as noncompliant, regardless of how the IRS handled a different year.

Leopard v. United States, No. 25-329, 2025 BL 353758, 2025 Us CL Lexis 2842 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 02, 2025), Court Opinion

Source: Justia

List of citations

• 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b)(1): Cited to explain the IRS’s authority to create substitute returns when a taxpayer fails to file.

• 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a): Establishes that a refund suit may not proceed unless a claim has been “duly filed” with the IRS.

• RCFC 12(b)(6): Standard for dismissing complaints that fail to state a plausible claim for relief.

• 26 C.F.R. § 301.6402-2(b)(1): Requires refund claims to state grounds and facts in detail; noncompliant claims are not considered for any purpose.

• 26 C.F.R. § 301.6402-3(a)(5): Addresses information to accompany claims, reinforcing the need for substantiation.

• Cary v. United States, 552 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2009): Recites motion-to-dismiss principles and inferences in favor of plaintiff.

• Gould, Inc. v. United States, 935 F.2d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 1991): Cited for the standard on reasonable inferences at the pleading stage.

• Lindsay v. United States, 295 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2002): Describes dismissal where alleged facts do not entitle plaintiff to a remedy.

• Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009): Pleading standard requiring plausible, nonconclusory facts.

• Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007): Establishes the plausibility threshold for complaints.

• Am. Bankers Ass’n v. United States, 932 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019): Notes that legal conclusions need not be accepted on a motion to dismiss.

• Dimare Fresh, Inc. v. United States, 808 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2015): Allows consideration of materials integral to the claim beyond the four corners of the complaint.

• Terry v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 645 (2012): Similar scope for documents considered at the 12(b)(6) stage.

• Dixon v. United States, 67 F.4th 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2023): Distinguishes jurisdictional “fact of filing” from regulatory “duly filed” adequacy.

• Brown v. United States, 22 F.4th 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2022): Confirms that “duly filed” is a regulatory sufficiency requirement resolved on the merits.

• Vensure HR, Inc. v. United States, 119 F.4th 7 (Fed. Cir. 2024): Affirms that “when, where, and how” compliance rules are regulatory.

• Williams v. United States, 548 F. App’x 618 (Fed. Cir. 2013): Refund claims must meet regulatory requirements or are ineffective.

• Waltner v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 737 (2011), aff’d, 679 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2012): Returns without essential data or substantiation are not valid returns and cannot support refund suits.

• United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830 (7th Cir. 1980): A “return” must show an honest and reasonable intent to supply required information.

• Diamond v. United States, 530 F. App’x 943 (Fed. Cir. 2013): Refusal to substantiate deductions defeats “honest endeavor” and supports dismissal.

• Goldberger v. United States, 150 Fed. Cl. 284 (2020): Dismissal where amended return changed income but lacked supporting documents.

• Meissner v. United States, 136 Fed. Cl. 763 (2018): $0-liability amended return without support was not duly filed.

• Hamzik v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 766 (2005): Returns lacking essential financial information are not properly executed.

• Kiselis v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 61 (2017): Refund claim invalid where taxpayer omitted schedules and third-party distribution details.

• Kehmeier v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 442 (2010): Reinforces need for essential information on returns for validity.

• Angelus Milling Co. v. Comm’r, 325 U.S. 293 (1945): Commissioner may demand information in a particular form; limited waiver doctrine.

• Harrah’s Club v. United States, 228 Ct. Cl. 650 (1981): IRS may challenge in a later year what it allowed earlier.

• Auto. Club of Mich. v. Comm’r, 353 U.S. 180 (1957): Each tax year is separate; prior treatment does not bind later years.

• Malchow—Bartlett v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2010-271: Tax years considered separately.

• Elkhorn Valley Trucks, LLC v. United States, No. 8:24CV339, 2025 WL 1261281 (D. Neb. May 1, 2025): Prior treatment does not preclude correction in a subsequent year.

• Hawkins v. Comm’r, 713 F.2d 347 (8th Cir. 1983): Commissioner may correct earlier acceptance in later years.

• IRS, About Form 1040-X: Cited for the instruction to attach supporting documentation to amended returns.