Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-01041-TCW

Document 12

Filed 02/24/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Docket No. 05-1041 T Judge Thomas C. Wheeler

MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Plaintiff, Parker Hannifin Corporation, respectfully moves the Court for an enlargement of time of 60 days, from February 27, 2006, to and including April 28, 2006, within which to respond to the Motion of the United States to Dismiss the Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction in the above-captioned case. This is the first enlargement requested for this purpose. As good cause therefor, Plaintiff states as follows: This is a suit in which plaintiff alleges and seeks the refund of interest paid with respect to federal corporate income tax. Immediately upon receipt of this motion, plaintiff's counsel began to investigate the basis for defendant's motion to dismiss. In its motion, defendant has taken the position that the plaintiff has failed to file a timely claim for refund with respect to plaintiff's federal corporate income tax liability for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1987. The overpayment at issue originated as an overpayment from plaintiff's 1988 tax year, and then was credited, as a payment, to the plaintiff's 1987 tax year. The primary question involves when this 1988 overpayment was credited to the petitioner's 1987 tax year. The defendant has taken the

1

Case 1:05-cv-01041-TCW

Document 12

Filed 02/24/2006

Page 2 of 2

position that February 5, 1999 is the date in which the credit took place. Plaintiff does not believe that this is the appropriate date that the payment was credited to the petitioner's 1987 tax year. Plaintiff is in the process of investigating when this credit was applied. Plaintiff has also been working with its outside consultant, who has been unavailable for a portion of the month of February, to determine as a factual matter, when the credit was applied. In addition, defendant, in its motion, has raised substantial legal issues involving the variance and waiver doctrines that will require extensive legal research and discussion. The time requested herein is, therefore, necessary for the plaintiff's counsel to further investigate the factual basis of defendant's motion in this matter and to further research the legal issues raised by the defendant, in order to adequately respond to defendant's motion to dismiss. We are authorized to state that counsel for defendant has no objection to this motion. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that its motion be granted. Dated: February 23, 2006 Respectfully submitted, /s/ William R. Stewart William R. Stewart Attorney for Plaintiff THOMPSON HINE LLP 3900 Key Center 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: 216-566-5580 Facsimile: 216-566-5800

(0010680)

11158512.1

2