the [Bjoard to defer action on the claim, the [B]oard, as a condition to deferring action, may require the claimant to waive interest for the period during which the person requests the [Bjoard to defer action on the claim.”). If the Board grants the stay request, then taxpayers can submit their evidence in support of the claim for a refund at the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. If the Board denies the stay request, taxpayers can proceed with the claim for a refund, asserting that the redetermination hearing was unconstitutional because it was held in violation of their civil rights. The Board has the authority to consider and remedy any alleged errors it previously made in assessing the amount owed. Section 6981 authorizes the Bo r. 886, 889, 152 Cal.App.3d 1156, 1163 (1984) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, we conclude the Taxpayers’
holding that the taxpayer sufficiently tendered its unconstitutional vagueness challenge against the boards regulation in the claim for 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 regulation must sufficiently convey the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices to avoid unconstitutional vagueness 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