“may not be maintained in any court.” Dalm, 494 U.S. at 602, 110 S.Ct. at 1365; see also Mutual Assurance, Inc. v. United States, 56 F.3d 1353, 1355-56 (11th Cir.1995) (“[A] taxpayer’s filing of an administrative refund claim with the IRS in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Internal Revenue Code is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the maintenance of a tax refund suit.”); Charter Co. v. United States, 971 F.2d 1576, 1579 (11th Cir.1992) (“A taxpayer may not sue the United States for a tax refund until it first files a refund claim with the government.”); Vintilla v. United States, 931 F.2d 1444, 1446 (11th Cir.1991) (explaining that, under Dalm, timely claim for refund is jurisdictional requirement in tax refund suits); In re Graham, 981 F.2d 1135, 1138 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); In re Smith, 921 F.2d 136, 139 (8th Cir.1990)
holding that regulatory requirements are not jurisdictional in nature holding that claims for a refund of invalid export tax brought under a statute other than  7422 were barred holding that an anticipated tax refund was property of the bankruptcy estate as of the date the bankruptcy case was filed holding that the trial court lacked authority to order a refund where the defendants case did not meet the specific statutory requirements authorizing a refund holding that bankruptcy court erred in awarding tax refund because  505 and 7422 are nonwaivable jurisdictional requirements