Plemons: An Unclaimed-Withholding Letter Did Not Make the Later Refund Claim Timely

A letter saying you may have unclaimed tax credits can sound like welcome news. Recovering the money still depends on claiming it through the proper process and within the applicable time. In Appeal of Plemons, 2026-OTA-524 (July 23, 2026), FTB identified possible unclaimed nonwage withholding. The Office of Tax Appeals later sustained denial of the taxpayers’ $9,475 refund claim because it was untimely. The credit letter and the date the withholding was treated as paid served different purposes.

The original return and later credit letter concerned different amounts

The taxpayers jointly filed their 2020 return on May 4, 2021, within the extension period. It reported $12,000 in estimated tax and other payments, $7,096 in withholding and an $8,052 overpayment they asked to apply to 2021 estimated tax. FTB accepted the return and applied that carryforward. The first finding appears in Plemons.

On July 18, 2024, FTB sent T. Plemons an Unclaimed Nonwage Withholding Credits letter identifying possible credits of $9,474.72. It instructed her to file an amended return and advised her about the statute of limitations. The taxpayers filed an amended 2020 return on May 15, 2025, increasing withholding by $9,475 and requesting that amount as a refund. FTB treated it as a refund claim, then denied it for timing. The findings continue in Plemons.

The earlier $8,052 credit to 2021 and the later $9,475 refund request should therefore remain separate in the account history. The opinion describes the agency’s response to the amended return; the existence of a possible credit in the letter did not itself establish a timely refund claim.

The refund periods used the return and payment history

The OTA applied Revenue and Taxation Code section 19306(a): Generally, the latest of four years from a return filed within the extended filing period, four years from the original due date without an extension, or one year from an overpayment. It also applied section 19002(c)(1), under which withheld tax was deemed paid on the return’s due date. Its discussion appears in Plemons.

The original return had been filed within the extension period, so the opinion applied the filing-based four-year period. It found the May 2025 amended claim outside that period. For the one-year alternative, the relevant withholding was deemed paid in April 2021, rather than when the July 2024 letter identified it. That distinction explains why discovering an unclaimed credit later did not supply a new payment date in this case.

A pandemic postponement and a filing extension had different effects

The taxpayers argued that the pandemic had moved the 2020 return due date and that their May 2025 claim was therefore timely. The OTA identified the actual postponement as May 17, 2021. It explained that an emergency postponement under the provisions it applied ran concurrently with extensions and did not change the original due date for statutes relying on that date. The analysis appears in Plemons.

The opinion relied on Treasury Regulation section 301.7508A-1(b)(3)–(4), as applicable through California law, and Appeal of Bannon, 2023-OTA-096P. It sustained the denial after applying the statutory periods to the actual filing history. A deadline review for another taxpayer needs the specific relief provision, tax year, filing and payment dates, and applicable calendar rules; a later publicized filing day should not simply be substituted into every refund calculation.

The mailing account also needed evidence

The taxpayers said they prepared the claim on May 12 and mailed it on May 13, 2025. FTB’s record showed receipt on May 15. The third-page footnote explains that the evidence did not establish a different filing date, while also concluding that the taxpayers’ asserted May 13 date would have been late. Keep that alternative reasoning intact: Proving the asserted mailing date would not have changed this result.

The discussion in Plemons identifies filing evidence such as a registered or certified mail receipt. A preparation date and an unsupported statement about mailing did not establish timely filing on this record. The exact filing method and governing rule remain part of a current claim’s review.

The denial was sustained, with a separate outcome-only concurrence

The OTA sustained FTB’s action in Plemons. Judge Leung’s separate concurrence on the fifth page states agreement only with the outcome and identifies the provisions and authority on which he relied.

For a taxpayer receiving a similar letter, the practical work begins with the original return, the possible unclaimed credit, amounts already claimed or carried forward, and actual refund-filing evidence. Our guide to an unclaimed nonwage-withholding letter develops that task. The separate guide to collections on unfiled returns addresses a different account history.