The claim must be filed within the later of 3 years from filing (April 15, 2025) or 2 years from payment (April 15, 2024). The later period expires April 15, 2025. June 1, 2025 is after that deadline, making the claim untimely. Option A is incorrect because the 2-year period from payment expired April 15, 2024, which is the earlier - not the controlling - period. Option C misstates the SOL period. Option D incorrectly identifies the 2-year prong as the controlling deadline.

The controlling period is the later of: 3 years from the date filed (October 15, 2022) = October 15, 2025; or 2 years from the date paid (April 15, 2022) = April 15, 2024. October 15, 2025 is the later date and therefore the controlling deadline. Option A is 3 years from the payment date, which is incorrect. Option B is 2 years from the payment date. Option D is 2 years from the filing date.

The controlling period is the later of: 3 years from the date the original return was filed (April 15, 2020) = April 15, 2023; or 2 years from the date the tax was paid (November 15, 2022) = November 15, 2024. November 15, 2024 is the later date and controls. Option A is 3 years from the original filing, which is the earlier prong. Option B is only 1 year from the assessment payment. Option C is 5 years from the original filing date, which has no basis in the tax code.

The standard assessment statute of limitations under IRC Section 6501(a) is 3 years from the date the return was filed. The 2022 return was filed April 18, 2023, so the IRS can assess through April 18, 2026. Option B uses April 15 rather than the actual filing date of April 18. Option C is only 2 years from filing. Option D is incorrect; unreported self-employment income does not trigger an unlimited assessment period unless the omission exceeds 25% of gross income (6-year SOL) or the return was fraudulent (no SOL).

Under IRC Section 6511(a), the 3-year period runs from the date the return was filed. When a taxpayer obtains an extension and files on, say, October 15, the 3-year period runs from that October 15 filing date - giving the taxpayer more time to file a refund claim than if they had filed on the original April 15 due date. Option A uses the original due date rather than the actual filing date. Option C incorrectly uses the extension filing date. Option D describes a hybrid rule that does not exist.

The controlling period is the later of: 3 years from the filing date (April 15, 2020) = April 15, 2023; or 2 years from the payment date (April 15, 2020) = April 15, 2022. The 3-year prong governs, giving a deadline of April 15, 2023. The couple has until April 15, 2023 regardless of when they discovered the error in March 2022. Option A is the 2-year prong, which is the earlier period and does not control. Option B is the month of discovery, which has no legal significance. Option D is 4 years from filing, which misstates the SOL.

Under IRC Section 6501(e)(1), when a taxpayer omits from gross income an amount exceeding 25% of the gross income stated on the return, the IRS has 6 years (not 3) to assess. Here, $100,000 omitted / $80,000 stated = 125%, which far exceeds 25%, triggering the 6-year SOL. Six years from April 15, 2021 = April 15, 2027. Option B applies the standard 3-year SOL, which is superseded by the substantial omission rule. Option C describes the rule for fraudulent returns (no SOL), not for substantial omissions. Option D misstates the period as 10 years.

The general rule applies: the later of 3 years from filing (April 15, 2025) or 2 years from payment (April 15, 2024). Both deadlines have expired by August 2025, making the refund claim untimely regardless of the nature of the error. There is no special extended period for inherited property exclusion errors. Option A misstates the SOL as 4 years. Option C fabricates a 6-year rule for inheritances. Option D is incorrect because 2 years from payment expired April 15, 2024 - the earlier of the two prongs, and still expired.

A protective claim is a recognized mechanism to preserve refund rights when the legal basis for the claim has not yet been fully established. Filing the protective claim before the SOL expires tolls the period; the taxpayer can then perfect the claim after the triggering event (here, the litigation) is resolved. Without the protective claim, the SOL would expire and the taxpayer would lose refund rights. Option A is incorrect; the IRS does recognize protective claims. Option B is incorrect; the whole point of the protective claim is that a new SOL period is not required. Option D overstates the IRS obligation.

Filing an amended return generally does not extend the IRS's assessment statute of limitations - the 3-year period runs from the original return's filing date regardless of amended return activity. However, a 60-day exception exists: when an amended return is filed within 60 days before the SOL expires, the IRS has at least 60 days after receiving it to assess. In this fact pattern, the amendment is filed January 10, 2025, and the SOL expires April 15, 2026 - well more than 60 days away - so the 60-day rule is not triggered and the SOL is unaffected. Answer C is correct. Option A incorrectly resets the SOL from the amended return's date. Option B creates a 1-year extension that does not exist. Option D is too absolute; it ignores the 60-day exception that applies when an amended return is filed close to the expiration date.