We think our interpretation of the statute achieves an appropriate and reasonable result in this case : The taxpayer who files a timely income tax return could obtain a refund in the Tax Court under s6512 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( B ), without regard to whether the taxpayer has actually filed a timely claim for refund.
42.
Section 6511 ( a ) indicates that a claim for refund is timely if it is " filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the return was filed, " and it plainly contemplates that a claim can be filed even " if no return was filed . " 26 U . S . C . s6511 ( a ).
43.
See 26 U . S . C . s6512 ( b ) ( 3 ) . ( footnote 2 ) Consequently, a taxpayer who seeks a refund in the Tax Court, like respondent, does not need to actually file a claim for refund with the IRS; the taxpayer need only show that the tax to be refunded was paid during the applicable look-back period.
44.
Under the Fourth Circuit's rule, the availability of a refund turns entirely on whether the taxpayer has in fact filed a claim for refund with the IRS, because it is the date of actual filing that determines the applicable look-back period under s6511 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( and, by incorporation, s6512 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( B ) ).
45.
Lundy first adopts the Fourth Circuit's view, which is that the applicable look-back period is determined by reference to the date that the taxpayer actually filed a claim for refund, and argues that he is entitled to a 3-year look-back period because his late-filed 1987 tax return contained a refund claim that was filed within three years from the filing of the return itself.
46.
Lundy in fact argues that Congress must have intended the claim described in s6512 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( B ) to be a claim filed on a return, because there is no other way to file a claim for refund with the IRS . Brief for Respondent 28, 30 ( citing 26 CFR s301.6402-3 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( 1995 ).
47.
But having filed a timely return, the taxpayer would be precluded by the passage of time from filing an actual claim for refund " within 3 years from the time the return was filed, " as s6511 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A ) requires . s6511 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( incorporating by reference s6511 ( a ) ).
48.
Lundy in fact argues that Congress must have intended the claim described in s6512 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( B ) to be a claim filed on a return, because there is no other way to file a claim for refund with the IRS . Brief for Respondent 28, 30 ( citing 26 CFR s301 . 6402-3 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( 1995 ).
49.
Section 6512 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( B ) defines the look-back period that applies in Tax Court by incorporating the look-back provisions from s6511 ( b ) ( 2 ), and directs the Tax Court to determine the applicable period by inquiring into the timeliness of a hypothetical claim for refund filed " on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency ."
50.
Lundy correctly argues that Congress intended s6512 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( B ) to permit taxpayers to seek a refund in Tax Court in circumstances in which they might otherwise be barred from filing an administrative claim for refund with the IRS . This is in fact the way s6512 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( B ) operates in a large number of cases.
