Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00160/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00160-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Recovery of IRS Tax

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BLAKE WINGLE, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-160 REC/LJO 

ORDER DENYING UNITED STATES'

MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

On October 3, 2005, the court heard the United States'

motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, against plaintiff, Blake Wingle.

Upon due consideration of the record and the arguments of

the parties, the court denies this motion without prejudice. 

Blake Wingle, proceeding in pro per, has filed a an “Amended

Petition: For Protection of Inalienable Rights; Protection of

Civil/Statutory Rights; Appeal of Notice of Determination of IRS

Appeals Officers; For Setting Aside IRS Appeals Determination;

For New 26 U.S.C. §§ 6320 and 6330 Hearing; and For Remanding

Case 1:05-cv-00160-REC-LJO Document 26 Filed 10/13/05 Page 1 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Case Back to IRS Examination Division” (hereinafter referred to

as the Amended Petition). The Amended Petition alleges that this

court has jurisdiction “under the Constitution of the United

States, 28 U.S.C. § 1346, 26 U.S.C. § 6330; and 42 U.S.C.A. §

1983.” The Amended Petition, which is voluminous, refers to the

“tax returns and IRS determinations ... for the tax years 1993,

1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997.” The Amended Petition essentially

alleges that petitioner was entitled to an “IRS examination

hearing and appeals conference” before the IRS can proceed to

collection and that petitioner was never given examination

hearings or appeals conferences despite petitioner’s requests for

them. The Amended Petition alleges:

2.04 The IRS proceeded to collection for each

subject year, without granting the Congress

mandated IRS Examination Hearings, and

therefore the IRS was without subject matter

jurisdiction and thereafter acting under

color of law, and all IRS collection

acts/actions were without legal effect and

void.

The Amended Petition alleges that petitioner was granted a

“Collection Due Process Hearing”, that the “IRS Appeals Officers

were informed prior to the hearing and at the hearing that the

IRS has failed and refused to grant Plaintiff IRS examination

hearing, and in doing so have violated Plaintiff’s inalienable

and statutory rights”, that the “IRS Appeals Officers’

determination erroneously found that the IRS had complied with

all applicable IRS laws and procedures”; that “both IRS Appeals

Officers were NOT Knowledgeable of Congress enacted laws and

Case 1:05-cv-00160-REC-LJO Document 26 Filed 10/13/05 Page 2 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

procedures or the facts in the IRS administrative record”; and

that the “IRS Appeals Officers evidenced ... bias and prejudice

....” The Amended Petition alleges that the “IRS Appeals

Determination(s) should be stuck [sic] down and new IRS Appeals

Hearing held with specific notice to determine AT THE HEARING

whether the IRS followed ALL applicable revenue laws and

procedures, and the appropriateness of collection in light of the

IRS’ failure and refusal to grant pre-collection IRS examination

hearings.” The Amended Petition prays for the following relief:

1. Set aside the IRS Appeals Determination;

2. Order the IRS to conduct a new IRS

Appeals hearing, or in the alternative order

the IRS Appeals Office to remand the IRS

determination and penalties for the years

1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 to the IRS

Examination division for examination

hearings, so that Plaintiff can examine the

IRS’ personnel’s/Secretary’s findings,

evidence and basis in law for IRS

determinations; and present Plaintiff’s

findings, evidence and basis in law for

Plaintiff’s filings and for the first time

fully set forth Plaintiff’s position;

3. A finding that the IRS did NOT follow

applicable Congress mandated pre-collection

revenue law and applicable Congress and

Secretary mandated pre-collection procedure

for the years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and

1997;

4. A finding that the IRS, with regard to

IRS determinations for the years 1993, 1994,

1995, 1996 and 1997, did consistently and

systematically violate Plaintiff’s

inalienable rights, including, but not

limited to Plaintiff’s rights of due process

of law, equal protection of the laws, and

endangered Plaintiff with taking Plaintiff’s

property without just consideration. Partial

relief can be granted by remanding these

Case 1:05-cv-00160-REC-LJO Document 26 Filed 10/13/05 Page 3 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

matters back to the IRS Examination division

for Plaintiff’s right to have a face to face

meeting and all that such a meeting entails. 

Additional relief requested is that this

Court issue an injunction/restraining order

against the IRS prohibiting them from

violating Plaintiff’s inalienable rights.

5. A finding that the IRS with regard to IRS

determinations for the years 1993, 1004,

1995, 1996 and 1997 did consistently and

systematically violate Plaintiff’s statutory

and civil rights, including, but not limited

to Plaintiff’s rights of due process of law,

equal protection of the laws, and endangered

Plaintiff with taking Plaintiff’s property

without just consideration. Partial relief

can be granted by remanding these matters

back to the IRS Examination division for

Plaintiff’s right to have a face to face

meeting and all that such a meeting entails. 

The IRS deprived Plaintiff of Plaintiff’s

federal protected rights while acting under

color of law. This is a claim for relief can

be granted [sic] and for which the United

States Tax Court has no jurisdiction. 

6. A finding that the IRS with regard to IRS

determinations and penalties for the years

1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 acted under

color of law, and that all IRS determinations

and acts without examination hearings were

and are void, of no legal effect, and

unenforceable.

The United States, which has not yet filed an Answer to the

Amended Petition, has filed a motion for sanctions against

petitioner pursuant to Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The United States contends that sanctions under Rule 11 are

warranted because petitioner “has advanced frivolous arguments

challenging the constitutionality of federal tax law and has

submitted papers for an improper purpose, to harass and vex the

Government and its officials.” 

Case 1:05-cv-00160-REC-LJO Document 26 Filed 10/13/05 Page 4 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

In so asserting, the United States contends that the instant

action “is almost identical” to a previous action filed by

petitioner with this court, Wingle v. Internal Revenue Service,

et al., No. CV-F-03-6122 AWI/LJO. The file in petitioner’s

action before Judge Ishii has been sent to the Ninth Circuit in

connection with petitioner’s appeal. Therefore, the court does

not have access to a copy of the Complaint filed by petitioner in

Judge Ishii’s case. However, by Order filed on August 30, 2004,

Judge Ishii that the Complaint in his case was a “civil rights

action for injunctive relief stemming from a taxpayer’s

discontent about procedures followed by the ... IRS ... to

collect tax penalties” and that the Complaint alleged that

defendants “denied plaintiff ... his right to a pre-collection

hearing.” Judge Ishii further ruled in pertinent part:

The complaint alleges that the IRS imposed a

tax penalty on Plaintiff pursuant to 26

U.S.C. § 6702 for filing a frivolous income

tax return. Plaintiff alleges he is entitled

to an examination hearing, before the IRS

institutes collection proceedings. Plaintiff

alleges he has repeatedly and timely sought a

26 U.S.C. § 6703 penalty hearing from the

IRS, for the IRS to explain why the § 6702

tax penalty was imposed. Plaintiff alleges

he is entitled to an opportunity to explain,

prior to collection proceedings, why the

penalty was imposed in error. The IRS has

refused to hold an examination hearing and

has sent notices of intent to levy. The

complaint alleges that the IRS has not

followed pre-collection laws or procedures,

including pre-collection hearings. The

complaint also alleges that Plaintiff has

exhausted all of his administrative remedies.

...

Case 1:05-cv-00160-REC-LJO Document 26 Filed 10/13/05 Page 5 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

In tax cases, the United States waives

sovereign immunity only when a claimant has

exhausted IRS remedies. Ordinarily, there is

no jurisdiction in district courts over suits

for refund or penalty amounts paid until

taxpayer has paid the full amount of the

contested penalty assessment and has filed

claim for refund which IRS has either

rejected or not acted upon in six months ....

In a tax case such as Plaintiff’s, a claimant

must pay 15 percent of the § 6702 penalty and

file a claim for refund before bringing a

case in district court ... There is no

subject matter jurisdiction in the district

court under § 6703(c)(2) unless the taxpayer

follows the administrative remedies under §

6703(c)(1) providing for payment of a portion

of the penally and filing of a claim for

refund within 30 days of notification of

assessment of the penalty ... No preassessment judicial procedures are available

to challenge the § 6702 penalty .... 

...

Plaintiff has the burden of showing the

requisite waiver of sovereign immunity for

his suit ... Defendants argue that Plaintiff

fails to state a claim because he has not

paid the penalties owed under Section 6702

and exhausted his administrative remedies at

the IRS. Plaintiff alleges in his complaint

that he has exhausted administrative

remedies; however, Plaintiff does not allege

that he paid 15 percent of the amount of the

penalty assessed by the IRS and filed a claim

for refund, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6703. 

Therefore, Plaintiff has not shown that he

has exhausted administrative remedies as to

this claim against the United States, and

sovereign immunity is not waived. 

Jurisdiction in this court is lacking.

Plaintiff asserts that notwithstanding the

court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

1346. Section 1346(a)(1) gives the district

courts jurisdiction over civil actions for

the recovery of ‘any internal-revenue tax

alleged to have been erroneously or illegally

Case 1:05-cv-00160-REC-LJO Document 26 Filed 10/13/05 Page 6 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7

assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed

to have been collected without authority ...’ 

In 1960, the Supreme Court held that the

phrase ‘any internal-revenue tax’ can be

construed to refer to payment of the entire

amount of the assessment, and a federal

district court has no jurisdiction under

Section 1346(a)(1) of a suit for refund which

did not discharge the entire amount of his

assessment ... A taxpayer threatened with an

illegal tax must pay the tax and then seek

recourse through 26 U.S.C. § 7422, that is,

he must file a refund claim followed by a

federal lawsuit if necessary ... Plaintiff

does not allege that he paid the penalty

assessment or sought recourse through 26

U.S.C. § 7422 before filing the complaint in

district court. Plaintiff has not alleged

that he paid the purported tax debt and filed

a claim for refund before bringing his

federal lawsuit. Therefore, the court holds

that the district court does not have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1346 to enjoin

tax collection in Plaintiff’s case.

...

Plaintiff contends that his constitutional

rights to due process and equal protection

have been violated because he has been denied

a hearing by the IRS. Defendants argue that

Plaintiff fails to state a claim because he

does not have constitutional rights to an

administrative hearing prior to assessment of

penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 6702. Federal

cases have rejected due process challenges to

the provisions of §§ 6702 and 6703 based on

the contention that there was no requirement

for a hearing before assessment of the

penalty ... The courts also rejected due

process challenges to the provisions based on

the contention that the provisions required

payment of 15 percent of the penalty before

administrative review and a judicial hearing

... Therefore, the court finds that Plaintiff

does not have constitutional rights to a precollection administrative hearing.

The United States contends that the Amended Petition filed

in the action before this court, “although nonsensical and

Case 1:05-cv-00160-REC-LJO Document 26 Filed 10/13/05 Page 7 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

8

unintelligible, appear[s] to seek relief based upon frivolous

claims regarding alleged constitutional violations involving

federal tax collection.”

The court denies this motion for Rule 11 sanctions to the

extent that the United States contends that the instant action is

identical to petitioner’s action before Judge Ishii. It is

apparent that the action before Judge Ishii was a challenge to a

penalty imposed upon petitioner for a single taxable year, which

challenge was based on an Internal Revenue Code section not

involved in the Amended Petition filed with this court. In

addition, the Amended Petition refers to more than one taxable

year and contests the adequacy of the hearing accorded petitioner

under 26 U.S.C. § 6330, a challenge not involved in Judge Ishii’s

action.

Apparently recognizing the differences between the action

dismissed by Judge Ishii and the allegations of the Amended

Petition before this court, the United States argues that Rule 11

sanctions should be imposed on petitioner because of his failure

to comply with Magistrate Judge O’Neill’s Order directing Wingle

to file an Amended Petition. 

The record in the instant action demonstrates that

Magistrate Judge O’Neill initially recommended sua sponte that

this action be dismissed without leave to amend. However, after

reviewing petitioner’s objections to the recommendation,

Magistrate Judge O’Neill vacated the recommendation and issued an

Order directing petitioner to file an Amended Petition, stating

Case 1:05-cv-00160-REC-LJO Document 26 Filed 10/13/05 Page 8 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

9

in pertinent part:

Based on plaintiff’s papers filed May 5,

2005, this Court construes plaintiff’s

complaint to allege errors of an appeals

officer’s determination following a December

14, 2004 due process hearing. The

complaint’s allegations regarding the appeals

officer fail to state a claim. The complaint

fails to allege Section 6330(c) discrepancies

to permit this Court to proceed with review. 

The complaint fails to even hint at the

appeals officer’s determination. The

complaint makes sweeping comments without

supporting facts or substance. The complaint

fails to state facts that this Court, rather

than the United States Tax Court, has

jurisdiction to satisfy F.R.Civ.P 8(a)(1). 

The complaint does not adequately identify

grounds for relief to satisfy F.R.Civ.P

8(a)(2). The complaint fails to articulate

particular relief sought by plaintiff. The

pleading deficiencies prevent this Court from

proceeding on plaintiff’s complaint.

...

Magistrate Judge O’Neill directed petitioner to file an amended

petition in compliance with his order and admonished petitioner

that “a failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with

this order will result in a recommendation to dismiss this action

for failure to obey a court order.” 

The United States contends that petitioner has not complied

with Magistrate Judge O’Neill’s Order because the Amended

Petition

still makes ‘sweeping comments without

supporting facts or substance’ and neither

states facts where subject matter

jurisdiction can be ascertained nor states

claims upon which relief can be granted ...

In viewing the 150+ page Amended Complaint in

the most favorable light possible, this Court

may have subject matter jurisdiction over

Case 1:05-cv-00160-REC-LJO Document 26 Filed 10/13/05 Page 9 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

10

frivolous filing penalties (but not income

tax penalties) that may have been assessed

against Mr. Wingle: Mr. Wingle filed his

complaint on February 4, 2005, within 30 days

of the Notice. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1)

... However, Mr. Wingle fails to even hint of

any claim regarding frivolous filing

penalties in violation of Rule 8(a)(2) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ....

Petitioner is proceeding in pro per. The United States

concedes that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over

petitioner’s claims concerning the due process hearing under

Section 6630 accorded to him, at least to the extent the Amended

Petition complains of the frivolous filing penalties imposed on

petitioner. To the extent that the United States is arguing that

Rule 11 sanctions should be granted because the Amended Petition

does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the

United States has not moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Although imposition of Rule 11

sanctions may be appropriate at some later date, the court

concludes that a request for Rule 11 sanctions on the ground that

the Amended Petition does not state a claim upon which relief can

be granted is premature. 

ACCORDINGLY:

1. The United States’ motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule

11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is denied without

prejudice.IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00160-REC-LJO Document 26 Filed 10/13/05 Page 10 of 10