Blog · 15 October 2026

Informal Refund Claim Doctrine: What Singh v. United States Means for §6511 Deadlines, Form 1040-X and US CPA Firms

By Keshav Bansal, CA

When a client misses the three-year window for a Form 1040-X, the informal refund claim doctrine may still preserve the refund. In Singh v. United States, No. 1:25-cv-00056 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2026), Judge Ann M. Donnelly held that a romance-scam victim’s July 25, 2019 letter asking the IRS to “waive” a penalty and taxes she had already paid was a timely informal claim, later perfected by a 2022 Form 1040-X. The ruling only denied the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; no refund has been won, and the case continues. For US CPA firms, the informal claim doctrine turns on what a client put in writing, and when.

What happened in Singh v. United States

Per the opinion, in October 2017 Juliet R. Singh was persuaded by an online dating scammer to withdraw $100,000 from her IRA and send it to him, ostensibly for his mother’s medical care. Police and the Secret Service never recovered it. She filed her 2017 return on April 11, 2018, reported the withdrawal as income, did not claim a theft loss, and on June 14, 2018 paid $28,069.74, an amount that included the 10% early withdrawal penalty (her letter split it as $27,604 tax plus $465.74 interest).

Her July 25, 2019 letter to the IRS described the scam, the payment and the NYPD case details, and asked the IRS to waive the 10% penalty and the 2017 tax. On September 19, 2022 the IRS told her to file an amended return. Her Form 1040-X, dated October 7 and received October 19, 2022, removed the $100,000 from income and requested a $30,601 refund. On August 15, 2023 the IRS denied it as untimely, saying her last day was May 17, 2021. She sued on March 27, 2025.

The basic clock (3 years from filing or 2 years from payment, whichever is later, plus the §6511(b)(2) lookback cap) is covered in our Form 1040-X and El Deeb article.

The informal claim doctrine: three elements, no magic words

Under United States v. Kales, 314 U.S. 186 (1941), a timely notice that fairly advises the IRS of the claim can count even if formally defective, once later cured by amendment. The Second Circuit’s AmBase decision (2013) lists three components: the claim must give the IRS notice that the taxpayer wants a refund, describe the legal and factual basis, and have a written component.

Singh’s letter never used the word “refund.” The court said that did not matter: “A refund is the only way the IRS can ‘waive’ a penalty that a taxpayer has already paid.” Her description of the scam and the police case was enough. She “did not use the magic words ‘theft loss deduction,’ but it is clear that she was requesting one.”

Perfecting the claim with Form 1040-X

An informal claim must later be perfected by a formal one. Citing Computervision (Fed. Cir. 2006), the court noted that a formal amendment filed after the limitations period must be filed while the original claim is still under consideration. It found the September 19, 2022 IRS letter had not rejected the 2019 claim, because that letter listed the unrelated $10,700 CP2000 rollover amount.

The government argued the 1040-X was defective because it said only that the “1099-R should not be taxed” rather than claiming a theft loss. Read together with the attached cover letters, which the Form 1040-X jurat brings under penalties of perjury as “accompanying schedules and statements,” the submission let the IRS make an intelligent review. The court called the mislabeling “trivial.”

Why the waiver doctrine failed

Singh also argued that the IRS waived formal defects by processing her letter (transcript code 971 on August 1, 2019). The court rejected this. Waiver requires that the IRS investigated the merits, acted on the claim and made an “unmistakable” decision to dispense with the formal requirements. Ambiguous transaction codes and a confused IRS letter fell short.

The COVID §7508A(d) alternative, and its limits

As an independent ground, the court held that the 2019 version of §7508A(d) disregarded the period from January 20, 2020 through July 10, 2023 (60 days after the May 11, 2023 close of the COVID incident period) for this New York taxpayer. That made the 1040-X timely and kept the June 14, 2018 payment inside the §6511(b)(2)(A) lookback. The court followed Abdo v. Commissioner, 162 T.C. 148 (2024), and Kwong v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025), noting Kwong is on appeal to the Federal Circuit, so treat this theory as contested. It will not repeat for new disasters: for disasters declared after November 15, 2021, the mandatory period ends 60 days (120 days, now §7508A(e), for declarations after July 24, 2025) after the later of the earliest incident date or the declaration date. For postponement workflow, see our §7508A disaster relief guide.

§7422: no duly filed claim, no refund suit

Under §7422(a), no refund suit may be maintained until a claim has been “duly filed” under the regulations, which require each ground and supporting facts (Treas. Reg. §301.6402-2). Under §6532(a), suit generally cannot begin until 6 months after the claim is filed unless the IRS decides it sooner, and must begin within 2 years after a certified- or registered-mail notice of disallowance. Compare the prepayment Tax Court route in our Lindsey notice of deficiency article.

Scam losses: the deduction is a separate question

Singh’s loss year was 2017, before §165(h)(5). For tax years beginning after 2017, it allows personal casualty losses, including personal theft losses, only to the extent of personal casualty gains or if attributable to a federally declared disaster (or, for tax years beginning after 2025, a state declared disaster). The 2025 OBBBA made the limit permanent. IRS Chief Counsel memo 202511015 (January 17, 2025) concluded that a 2024 romance-scam victim had no profit motive, so the loss was a nondeductible personal casualty loss and the IRA distribution stayed taxable. By contrast, the memo allowed §165(c)(2) theft-loss deductions for compromised-account, phishing and investment-scam victims who moved money to protect or invest it. A rescued claim helps only if the deduction holds up.

A practical checklist for US CPA firms

• Put refund requests in writing early. Name the tax year, the amount paid and the reason; say “refund” plainly.
• Keep copies and proof of delivery. IRS receipt stamps and transcripts mattered in Singh.
• Perfect promptly. File the 1040-X with an explanation before the IRS rejects the informal claim.
• Diary §6511 and §6532 dates separately.
• Test the theft loss first. Check the loss year, profit motive and §165(h)(5) before promising a refund.

Where Tax Brew fits

Tax Brew provides bookkeeping, cleanup and tax prep support for US CPA firms, while your team keeps technical review, representation and sign-off. See our services, or email info@taxbrewglobal.com.

Sources: Singh v. United States, No. 25-CV-56 (AMD) (TAM), Memorandum Decision and Order (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2026); Ed Zollars, Current Federal Tax Developments (Sept. 25, 2026); IRC §§165, 6402, 6511, 6532, 7422, 7508A (Cornell LII); IRS CCA 202511015. General information, not tax or legal advice.