With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". instructed payroll to stop, but despite my instructions some payroll continued.” Ibid. The IRS denied this claim as well, “because [the plaintiff] previously filed a Claim for Refund, Form 843, and the claim was denied on April 29, 2005.” Def.’s Mot., Ex., Decl. of Joann Rogers, Ex. E. The accompanying explanatory letter stated that the plaintiff must file suit within two years of the April 29, 2005 disallowance. Ibid. However, the plaintiff did not file the complaint until June 11, 2007. The go 12 (N.D.Ohio 1955) (stating that the section of the Internal Revenue Code limiting time for commencement of action for recovery of internal revenue tax paid is jurisdictional, and where claim is barred, action must be dismissed.); Schmitt v. Kavanagh, 91 F.Supp. 659, 662 (E.D.Mich.1950) (<HOLDING>). The parties agree that the complaint was

A: recognizing that under illinois law parties are free to contract for a time period within which a suit may be brought  which is less than the general statute of limitation period applicable to written contracts
B: holding that the time within which suit may be brought after disallowance of a claim by irs is not controlled by a statute of limitation as generally understood but on conditions under which the united states has consented to be sued
C: holding that wjaiver of the right to remove must be clear and unequivocal  and that standard was not met by an agreement in which defendants consented to filing of suit in state court but which did not address removal
D: holding that in statute authorizing suits against united states limits time period in which such suits may be brought united states retains its sovereign immunity as to any suits brought outside of that time period therefore court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over suit against united states that is barred by statute of limitations
B.