her subsequent failure to file a formal claim barred the court from exercising any jurisdiction over the claim. See United States v. Kales, 314 U.S. 186, 194, 62 S.Ct. 214, 86 L.Ed. 132 (1941) (noting that, in applying tax regulations, the Court “has often held that a notice fairly advising the [Internal Revenue] Commissioner of the nature of the taxpayer’s claim, which the Commissioner could reject because [it was] too general or because it does not comply with formal requirements of the statute and regulations, will nevertheless be treated as a claim where formal defects and lack of specificity have been remedied by amendment filed after the lapse of the statutory period”); PALA, Inc. Employees Profit Sharing Plan & Trust Agreement v. United States, 234 F.3d 873, 879 (5th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). In previous cases that have applied the
holding that the phrase provided by law means prescribed or provided by statute holding that courts will excuse harmless noncompliance with the formalities prescribed for refund claims provided that the taxpayer corrects the formal deficiencies at a later time holding that if a state court grants leave to pursue an out of time appeal the proper period of exclusion for  2244d purposes is all time between the filing of the request to excuse the default and the state courts decision on the merits if it elects to excuse the default holding that georgia refund statute signifies state waiver of immunity only to the extent provided by the express terms of the statute holding claim that individuals convicted of murder at time when statute provided for mandatory death penalty that was later found to be unconstitutional are subject to no punishment at all for their offenses as meritless