First Interstate Bank of Nevada, N.a., As Executor of Theestate of Marilla D. Black and As Trustee of Themarilla D. Black Testamentary Trust,plaintiff-appellee, v. United States of America, Defendant-appellant, 108 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 1997)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 108 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 1997) Submitted July 10, 1996. *Submission Deferred July 10, 1996. Resubmitted Feb. 24, 1997. Decided March 18, 1997

Gary R. Allen, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellant.

Paul D. Bancroft, Lionel, Sawyer & Collins, Reno, NV, for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-94-00034-PMP.

Before: CHOY, O'SCANNLAIN and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

LEAVY, Circuit Judge:


The United States appeals from the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of First Interstate Bank of Nevada, N.A. as Executor of the Estate of Marilla D. Black and Trustee of the Marilla D. Black Testamentary Trust. The district court's ruling was based on its determination that the statutory limitation period of 26 U.S.C. § 6511 for the filing of a tax refund claim should be equitably tolled in the instant case because of the taxpayer's mental incompetence prior to her death in 1990. See Zeier v. United States, 80 F.3d 1360, 1365 (9th Cir. 1996); Schwartz v. United States, 67 F.3d 838, 841 (9th Cir. 1995) (as amended).

The Supreme Court has now declared that the statutory limitation period of 26 U.S.C. § 6511 is not subject to equitable tolling due to a taxpayer's mental incompetence. United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347, ----, 117 S. Ct. 849, 853, 136 L. Ed. 2d 818 (1997).

Accordingly, the decision appealed from is

REVERSED.

 *

The members of the panel unanimously agree that this case is appropriate for submission on the briefs and without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and 9th Cir.R. 34-4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.