receives a notice of deficiency more than two years after the due date of tax returns and who subsequently files a tax return cannot claim a refund in the Tax Court. The Tenth Circuit has explicitly followed the Tax Court’s interpretation of § 6512(b)(3)(B) in a case with facts identical to Lundy’s situation. Richards v. Commissioner, 37 F.3d 587 (10th Cir.1994). Other circuits have followed the interpretation of § 6512(b)(3)(B) in other factual circumstances. See Galuska v. Commissioner, 5 F.3d 195 (7th Cir.1993) (applying two-year limitation under § 6512(b)(3)(B) where taxpayer filed petition in Tax Court four and one-half years after the due date for tax returns and one and one-half years after receiving the notice of deficiency); Miller v. United States, 38 F.3d 473 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. Commissioner, No. 93-2501, 1994
holding that the taxpayer met the claim requirement where the taxpayer first filed a timely letter with the irs that requested a refund and subsequently filed a formal refund claim holding that a taxpayer only has a refund right after the irs has credited the refund to other underpaid taxes therefore the refund was not part of the bankruptcy estate holding a taxpayer has three years from the date his return is actually filed to file a claim for refund or credit holding under section 7422a that the district court lacked jurisdiction over a taxpayers refund claim because the taxpayer failed to file a refund claim before the statute of limitations had run recognizing that twoyear limitation would have applied under  6512b3b although taxpayer filed claim for refund in a united states district court and  6511 applied