Businessman Stanley Henricksen appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his action contesting denial of tax refunds by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

*631 In 1997, Henrieksen timely filed refund claims based, as relevant, on a net operating loss (NOL) sustained in 1994 and carried back to 1991 and 1993. The IRS disallowed his claims because Henrieksen had sustained the NOL when he sold his trading card business inventory to his brother, a related party pursuant to I.R.C. § 267 (disallowing deduction of losses based on transactions between related parties, except where losses are sustained by corporations or distributees). In the district court, Henrieksen contended that the IRS was time-barred from disallowing his claims, and that he fell under section 267’s exception for distributees. The district court determined that Henrieksen had not shown why the IRS was time-barred from disallowing his claims, and found that Henrieksen was not a distributee within the meaning of section 267. For reversal, Henrieksen renews his arguments below, adding a statute-of-limitations argument based on I.R.C. § 6532(b) (limiting time in which IRS may sue to recover erroneous refund).

After de novo review of the record, see Rouse v. Benson, 193 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 1999), we agree with the district court that the IRS was not time-barred from denying Henrickseris claims, see Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 283, 52 S.Ct. 145, 76 L.Ed. 293 (1932), and that Henrieksen was not a distributee within the meaning of section 267. We also find that section 6532(b) does not support Henrickseris claims because he has not alleged that the IRS sued him to recover an erroneous refund for any of the tax years at issue.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.