the IRS, but argues against application of the statute of limitations. See Appellee’s Sur-re-ply at 3. First, Pransky asserts that the IRS brought the issue of its 1987 assessment before the Bankruptcy Court when it filed its proof of claim, thus the Bankruptcy Court properly exercised its jurisdiction. See Appellee’s Br. at 28. The debtor further argues that even if his complaint was technically barred by the statute of limitations, the Bankruptcy Court could properly evaluate the legalit 84 (D.N.J.2000) (agreeing with cited courts which have required taxpayers to file a claim for refund within the time limitations required by federal law, even if used as an offset or counterclaim); In re Dunhill Medical Inc., Civ. No. 92-37700, 1996 WL 354696 at *7 (Bankr.D.N.J. March 27, 1996) (<HOLDING>); see also In re Carter, 125 B.R. 832, 835
holding that court sitting in bankruptcy may allow a taxpayer to use overpayment of taxes as offset of debt to the irs but only if that offset request is timely holding that following confirmation of the debtors chapter 11 plan the internal revenue service could collect a nondischargeable tax claim that was not listed in the irss bankruptcy claim holding that although 11 usc  505a2b does not require a debtor to have filed a claim with the irs before requesting an offset or stating a counterclaim but the debtors assertion within the context of the bankruptcy must still be timely according to the internal revenue code holding that an answer that asserts a counterclaim against a plaintiff who then becomes a bankruptcy debtor is an action or proceeding against the debtor within the meaning of  362a1 notwithstanding the fact that the debtor initiated the lawsuit holding that the debtor lacked standing to bring a claim against the internal revenue service for the improper assessment of a tax deficiency because the cause of action was the property of the estate and had not been abandoned to the debtor