In the MarieBank case, CIR did not act on an administrative refund claim. MarieBank filed a judicial claim before the CTA. The CIR moved to dismiss arguing that the judicial claim was defective because the administrative claim was incomplete. What happened?

• A. The judicial claim can be dismissed due to defects in the administrative claim.
• B. The judicial claim is premature.
• C. The judicial claim is proper because defects in the administrative claim do not bar the judicial claim.
• D. The Court should remand to CIR.

Answer: (C)

The essential idea is that when the CIR does not act on a refund claim, the taxpayer’s remedy is a judicial claim before the CTA challenging the CIR’s inaction, and problems with the administrative claim don’t automatically defeat that judicial claim. The CTA can hear the petition and determine the entitlement to a refund even if the administrative claim wasn’t perfectly prepared. This ensures the taxpayer isn’t punished for a CIR delay or for minor defects in the administrative filing when the agency has failed to act.

In MarieBank’s situation, the CIR’s inaction on the administrative refund claim opened the door for a judicial petition. The fact that the administrative claim was incomplete does not bar the CTA from taking up the case or from deciding the merits of the refund claim. The court’s role is to address whether a refund is due, independent of technical flaws in the administrative filing, given the CIR’s failure to act. That’s why the proper outcome is that the judicial claim is proper even with defects in the administrative claim.