now appeals. II DISCUSSION Ms. Greene-Thapedi submits that the district court erred in dismissing the case. She contends that a reasonable fact-finder could determine that she did not receive the December 1997 deficiency notice for the 1992 taxable year, that the Government’s calculations of interest and penalties were incorrect and that these factual issues warranted further litigation in the district court. We cannot address the merits of Ms. Greene-Thapedi’s arguments because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case. Under section 7422(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, a district court lacks jurisdiction over a refund claim that has not first been filed with the IRS. United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 602, 110 S.Ct. 1361, 108 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990) (<HOLDING>); see also Bartley v. United States, 123 F.3d
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 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 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 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 statute of limitations should not be equitably tolled for taxpayer who filed a refund claim after the applicable statute of limitations