40 F3d 25 Kuralt v. United States

40 F.3d 25

Charles KURALT and Suzanna Kuralt, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 522, Docket 94-6117.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued Nov. 4, 1994.
Decided Nov. 10, 1994.

Joel E. Miller, Flushing, NY, for plaintiffs-appellants.

William J. Hoffman, New York City (Mary Jo White, U.S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., Gabriel W. Gorenstein, Asst. U.S. Atty., of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

Before MESKILL, WINTER, and MAHONEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by Judge McKenna. Kuralt v. United States, 866 F.Supp. 727 (S.D.N.Y.1994).

2

The Kuralts essentially argue on appeal that there is subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether a claimed refund is "attributable to [a TEFRA] item[ ]" within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7422(h). We have no quarrel with this general proposition, but conclude that the claimed refund in this case, which relates to a disallowed loss on the return of an S corporation of which Charles Kuralt was a shareholder, is clearly so attributable.