Filed: Dec. 13, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-40836 Conference Calendar DAVID M. NICHOLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Commissioner, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:98-CV-1980 - December 13, 2000 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* David M. Nichols, Texas prisoner # 666133, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil action as frivolous
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-40836 Conference Calendar DAVID M. NICHOLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Commissioner, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:98-CV-1980 - December 13, 2000 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* David M. Nichols, Texas prisoner # 666133, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil action as frivolous ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40836
Conference Calendar
DAVID M. NICHOLS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Commissioner,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:98-CV-1980
--------------------
December 13, 2000
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David M. Nichols, Texas prisoner # 666133, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his civil action as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). He argues that the district
court erred in holding that his action for judicial review of the
denial of tax refund requests was barred by the applicable two-
year statute of limitations. Nichols’ taxes for 1990 were deemed
paid on April 15, 1991, and his taxes for 1991 were deemed paid
on April 15, 1992. See 26 U.S.C. § 6513(b)(1). A refund claim
must be filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) “within 3
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-40836
-2-
years from the time the return was filed or 2 years from the time
the tax was paid, whichever of the periods expires later, or if
no return was filed by the taxpayer, within 2 years from the time
the tax was paid.” See 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a). Because he did not
timely file tax returns for 1990 and 1991, the applicable
limitations period for seeking a refund was two years from the
time the tax was paid. See
id. He did not file his tax
returns/refund requests for the years 1990 and 1991 until
September 1995. Therefore, he did not timely file his refund
requests with the IRS within the applicable two-year limitations
period in 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a)(1).
Nichols’ refund request was denied by the IRS on December 4,
1995. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6532(a)(1), Nichols had two years to
file a petition for judicial review of the denial of the request.
However, Nichols did not file the instant petition until November
16, 1998, after the expiration of the applicable two-year
limitations period in 26 U.S.C. § 6532(a)(1). Nichols has not
shown that the IRS prevented him in any way from filing his
petition for judicial review within the applicable two-year
statute of limitations. Therefore, he has not shown that the
district court erred in dismissing his action as time-barred.
Nichols’ appeal is without arguable merit, and thus,
frivolous. See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983). Therefore, Nichols’ appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir.
R. 42.2. Nichols is advised that the district court’s dismissal
of his action and this court’s dismissal of his appeal both count
as “strikes” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba
No. 00-40836
-3-
v. Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Nichols is also
advised that if he accumulates three strikes, he will be barred
from bringing a civil action or an appeal proceeding in forma
pauperis unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Nichols should review any
pending pleadings or appeals to ensure that they do not raise any
frivolous claims.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.