Juliet R. Singh v. United States, No. 1:25-cv-00056 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2026)

Tax practitioners frequently encounter situationally complex client cases where taxpayers, acting without immediate legal or tax counsel, submit informal written requests to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) explaining economic hardships or casualty events. When formal amended returns (Form 1040-X) are subsequently submitted past the standard statutory period under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 6511(a), the IRS routinely asserts a lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), claiming sovereign immunity.

In Juliet R. Singh v. United States, No. 1:25-cv-00056 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2026), United States District Judge Ann M. Donnelly issued a pivotal ruling denying the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The decision provides critical guidance for Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) and Enrolled Agents (EAs) on two distinct legal theories preserving refund jurisdiction: the Informal Claim Doctrine and statutory postponements under IRC § 7508A(d) resulting from federally declared disasters.

Factual Background and Procedural History

In October 2017, the taxpayer, Juliet R. Singh, fell victim to an online dating scam. The perpetrator fraudulently induced her to withdraw $100,000 from her Individual Retirement Account (IRA) and wire the funds to him under the guise of paying for emergency medical care. Following the transfer, the scammer ceased communications. Ms. Singh reported the crime to the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and the United States Secret Service, but law enforcement was unable to recover the funds or apprehend the perpetrator.

On April 11, 2018, Ms. Singh filed a timely federal individual income tax return (Form 1040) for the 2017 tax year. Although IRC § 165 permits tax deductions for uncompensated theft losses, Ms. Singh—unaware of the proper tax accounting treatment—did not claim a theft loss deduction on her return. Instead, she reported the entire $100,000 IRA withdrawal as taxable gross income and paid a total tax liability of $28,069.74 on June 14, 2018, which included a 10% early distribution penalty under IRC § 72(t).

On July 15, 2019, the IRS Automated Underreporter (AUR) system in Holtsville, New York, issued a Notice CP2000 proposing an additional tax assessment of $4,547 plus interest, alleging an unreported $10,700 portion of her IRA distribution. In response:

July 21, 2019 Audit Response: Ms. Singh sent a letter to the Holtsville AUR office demonstrating that the $10,700 represented a tax-free rollover repaid within the 60-day period prescribed by IRC § 408(d).
July 25, 2019 Refund Request Letter: Ms. Singh dispatched a separate letter to the IRS Service Center in Kansas City, Missouri, titled “RE: TAX YEAR 2017 — TO WAIVE THE 10% PENALTY DUE HARDSHIP I ENDURED FROM AN EARLY IRA WITHDRAWAL AND TAXES I PAID DUE TO HUGE TAX BRACKET.” The letter detailed the $100,000 online dating scam, stated that she paid $28,069.74 in tax and penalties on June 14, 2018, provided the NYPD case number and investigating officer details, and requested that the IRS waive the penalty and taxes paid.
IRS Internal Processing: On August 1, 2019, IRS Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS) records reflected transaction codes 971 (“Amended tax return or claim forwarded for processing”) and 977. On November 18, 2019, the IRS closed the CP2000 audit without assessing additional tax.

From 2020 through early 2023, Ms. Singh repeatedly telephoned and mailed follow-up letters to the IRS. On September 19, 2022, the IRS sent a letter acknowledging a “claim received on July 25, 2019,” but erroneously referenced the audit figure of $10,700 and stated: “The law allows you to file a claim for a refund of taxes you have paid. However, the law doesn’t allow you to file a claim to reduce the tax you owe.” The IRS instructed her to file an amended return.

On October 7, 2022 (received by the IRS on October 19, 2022), Ms. Singh submitted a Form 1040-X for tax year 2017, requesting a $30,601 refund. On the form, she removed the $100,000 distribution from income and noted “1099-R should not be taxed,” attaching detailed cover letters and police report references explaining the theft loss.

On August 15, 2023, the IRS disclaimed jurisdiction and denied her claim as untimely under IRC § 6511(a), asserting that her deadline expired on May 17, 2021. Following administrative appeal attempts, Ms. Singh filed a civil suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on March 27, 2025.

Taxpayer’s Request for Relief

Ms. Singh’s complaint sought a full refund of $30,601 in federal income taxes and early withdrawal penalties paid for the 2017 tax year, along with statutory interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2411 and IRC § 6611.

The government moved to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(1), asserting that sovereign immunity barred the action because no formal administrative refund claim was filed within the three-year period established by IRC § 6511(a).

Framework for Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Sovereign Immunity

In federal tax litigation, the United States possesses sovereign immunity unless explicitly waived by statute (Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Board of Univ. & School Lands, 461 U.S. 273 (1983); Humphrey v. IRS, 2022 WL 17728194 (2d Cir. 2022)). Congress granted federal district courts original jurisdiction over tax refund actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). However, this waiver is conditioned upon strict compliance with administrative prerequisites set forth in IRC § 7422(a):

“No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax... until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary, according to the provisions of law in that regard, and the regulations of the Secretary established in pursuance thereof.”

Treasury Regulation § 301.6402-2(b)(1) requires that a claim set forth in detail each ground upon which a credit or refund is claimed, along with supporting facts under penalties of perjury. Under IRC § 6511(a), a claim must be filed within three years from the date the return was filed or two years from the time the tax was paid, whichever is later (AmBase Corp. v. United States, 731 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2013)).

To defeat the government’s FRCP 12(b)(1) motion, the taxpayer asserted three independent legal theories:

The Waiver Doctrine;
The Informal Claim Doctrine; and
Statutory postponement under IRC § 7508A(d) resulting from the COVID-19 emergency.

The Court’s Legal Analysis and Application to Facts

Rejection of the Waiver Doctrine

The Waiver Doctrine applies when the IRS investigates the merits of a technically defective refund claim as if it were formal, thereby waiving procedural compliance (Angelus Milling Co. v. Commissioner, 325 U.S. 293 (1945); Zeeman v. United States, 395 F.2d 861 (2d Cir. 1968)). For waiver to apply, three elements are mandatory:

The IRS must have investigated the merits of the refund claim;
The IRS must have taken action on the claim; and
The IRS’s determination to dispense with regulatory requirements must be unmistakable (Gregory v. United States, 149 Fed. Cl. 719 (2020)).

Judge Donnelly concluded that the Waiver Doctrine did not apply. The IRS’s internal transaction codes (971 and 977) and its September 19, 2022 response letter failed to demonstrate unmistakable processing of a refund request. The IRS letter conflated the $10,700 audit issue with the $28,069.74 refund request and misapprehended her request as a demand to reduce unpaid tax liability rather than refund taxes already paid. Thus, the court held that the IRS did not unmistakably waive formal filing defects.

Application of the Informal Claim Doctrine

Under the landmark precedent United States v. Kales, 314 U.S. 186 (1941), a written notice that fairly advises the IRS of the nature of a taxpayer’s claim within the statutory period—though formally defective—will be treated as a valid claim if formal defects are subsequently cured by an amendment filed after the limitation period expires.

As synthesized in AmBase Corp. and United States v. Forma, 42 F.3d 759 (2d Cir. 1994), a valid informal claim requires three elements:

It must possess a written component;
It must provide the IRS notice that the taxpayer is seeking a refund; and
It must describe the legal and factual basis for the claim.

Applying these elements, Judge Donnelly held that Ms. Singh’s July 25, 2019 letter constituted a valid, timely informal claim:

Written Component: Met via the physical letter sent to the Kansas City Service Center.
Notice of Refund: Although the letter used the term “waive” rather than “refund,” the court observed: “A refund is the only way the IRS can ‘waive’ a penalty that a taxpayer has already paid.” Citing McMillan v. IRS, 2010 WL 3804895 (E.D.N.Y. 2010), the court emphasized that the only reasonable construction of her request to waive taxes and penalties paid on June 14, 2018, was a claim for refund.
Factual and Legal Grounds: The government contended that Ms. Singh failed to state a valid ground because she requested relief for “hardship” rather than explicitly citing a “theft loss deduction” under IRC § 165. Rejecting this rigid standard, the court held that tax law does not require magic words:

“The plaintiff did not use the magic words ‘theft loss deduction,’ but it is clear that she was requesting one. Her letter said that she ‘was a victim of an online dating scam and was scammed [her] entire savings and [her] IRA account’ and that she ‘reached out to the NYC police to recover [her] losses and was unsuccessful.’”

Perfection of the Informal Claim via Form 1040-X

To perfect an informal claim, the taxpayer must submit a formal claim (Form 1040-X) while the informal claim remains pending (Computervision Corp. v. United States, 445 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The formal amendment must relate to the same operative facts (St. Joseph Lead Co. v. United States, 299 F.2d 348 (2d Cir. 1962)).

The court held that Ms. Singh’s October 19, 2022 Form 1040-X and accompanying cover letters successfully perfected the July 25, 2019 informal claim. Under 303 W. 42nd St. Enterprises, Inc. v. IRS, 181 F.3d 272 (2d Cir. 1999), a formal claim need only set forth facts sufficient to allow an intelligent review. Quoting Scovill Mfg. Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 215 F.2d 567 (2d Cir. 1954), Judge Donnelly noted that Ms. Singh “showed the actual happenings with reasonable precision, and the government taxing authorities could not have been misled by the trivial mislabeling.”

Furthermore, the court firmly rejected the government’s argument that attached cover letters could not be considered because they were not under penalty of perjury. Judge Donnelly highlighted that the signature block on Form 1040-X explicitly incorporates all “accompanying schedules and statements” under penalties of perjury, and affirmed that under AmBase Corp., refund claims must be evaluated by examining surrounding communications as a whole.

Statutory Postponement Under IRC § 7508A and COVID-19 Emergency Declarations

As an independent, alternative ground for jurisdiction, the court addressed whether the October 19, 2022 Form 1040-X was timely on its face under IRC § 7508A(d) (2019 version), which governs mandatory disaster extensions.

Under the 2019 version of IRC § 7508A(d)(1), in the case of a qualified taxpayer in a federally declared disaster area, the period beginning on the earliest incident date and ending 60 days after the latest incident date specified in the declaration “shall be disregarded in the same manner as a period specified under subsection (a).”

On March 20, 2020, President Trump declared a major disaster in New York starting January 20, 2020, “and continuing.” On February 10, 2023, FEMA published a notice closing the incident period for COVID-19 major disaster declarations effective May 11, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 8884). Sixty days following May 11, 2023, was July 10, 2023.

The government raised five distinct arguments attempting to restrict the extension, all of which Judge Donnelly systematically rejected:

“Latest Incident Date”: The government argued that January 20, 2020 was the only specific date listed in the original declaration. The court held that the February 10, 2023 amendment established May 11, 2023 as the definitive “latest incident date,” and noted that the phrase “and continuing” had substantive legal meaning (Kwong v. United States, 179 Fed. Cl. 382 (2025)).
Statutory Heading: The government argued that the subsection heading “Mandatory 60-day extension” capped the relief at 60 days total. The court reiterated established statutory construction principles: section headings cannot limit the plain statutory text (Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 331 U.S. 519 (1947); IRC § 7806(b)). The heading refers to the mandatory minimum extension, whereas the text grants relief for the full duration of the disaster plus 60 days.
“In the Same Manner” Phrase: The government argued that § 7508A(d)’s cross-reference to subsection (a) incorporated subsection (a)’s discretionary 1-year cap. Following Abdo v. Commissioner, 162 T.C. 148 (2024), and Kwong, the court held that “in the same manner” defines the types of acts postponed (such as filing refund claims under § 7508(a)(1)), not a temporal limit. Furthermore, under § 7508A(d)(5), disaster extensions operate independently of discretionary extensions.
2021 Statutory Amendment: The government pointed to the November 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act amendment capping § 7508A(d) extensions as a “clarification” of original intent. The court held that amendments are presumed to alter existing law (Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (1995)), and noted that Congress expressly made the 2021 amendment prospective only.
Major Questions Doctrine: The government argued that interpreting § 7508A(d) to grant multi-year extensions violated the Major Questions Doctrine (West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022)). Judge Donnelly held that § 7508A(d) is a self-executing congressional mandate referencing executive disaster declarations under the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. § 5170), representing no unconstitutional delegation or transformative agency expansion.

Application of the IRC § 6511(b)(2) Lookback Window

Finally, the government asserted that even if the Form 1040-X was timely, IRC § 6511(b)(2)(A) restricted the refundable amount to taxes paid within three years prior to filing (June 14, 2018 to October 19, 2022 being greater than 3 years).

Judge Donnelly rejected this defense, holding that under IRC § 7508A(a) and (d), the statutory disaster period must be disregarded in calculating the lookback window. Excluding the COVID-19 disaster period, Ms. Singh’s payment on June 14, 2018 fell comfortably within the statutory lookback period.

Conclusions Arrived at by the Court

The District Court concluded that subject matter jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) and IRC § 7422(a) under two independent grounds:

Ms. Singh filed a timely informal claim for refund on July 25, 2019, which was validly perfected by her October 19, 2022 Form 1040-X submission.
Alternatively, under IRC § 7508A(d) (2019 version), the COVID-19 disaster relief provisions automatically extended her administrative refund claim filing deadline to July 10, 2023, making her October 19, 2022 Form 1040-X timely on its face.

Accordingly, the court DENIED the government’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.

Prepared with assistance from Gemini Notebook.