Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01795/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01795-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7426 IRS: Wrongful Levy for Taxes

---

1

15cv1795 BTM(RBB)

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BURNETT W. WATKINS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE 

TREASURY; INTERNAL 

REVENUE SERVICE,

Defendants.

Case No.: 15cv1795 BTM(RBB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

The United States of America has filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 

Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed below, 

the Government’s motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a taxpayer who, in 2009, entered into an installment agreement 

with the IRS to pay his federal tax liabilities. (Compl. [Doc. 1] at 1.) In 2015, 

Plaintiff was told by the IRS that his installment agreement was in default status 

since December 2013. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff received notice that the IRS was levying 

his social security account for 15% of his monthly benefit. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that 

Case 3:15-cv-01795-BTM-RBB Document 8 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 4
2

15cv1795 BTM(RBB)

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

27

28

he has never missed a payment under the installment agreement and never 

defaulted. (Id.) Plaintiff requests that the Court (1) reinstate his installment 

agreement of 2009; (2) have the IRS release its levy of his social security benefit; 

and (3) credit his account with all of the payments he has made through 2015.

II. DISCUSSION

The United States moves to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. The United States contends that Plaintiff has not met his burden of 

showing that the United States has waived its sovereign immunity in connection 

with Plaintiff’s claims in this action. The Court agrees. 

The United States is immune from suit except when it consents to be sued. 

United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 608 (1990). A waiver of sovereign immunity 

cannot be implied, but must be unequivocally expressed. Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 

F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985). The taxpayer bears the burden of showing an 

unequivocal waiver of immunity. Baker v. United States, 817 F.2d 560, 562 (9th 

Cir. 1987). 

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to reinstate his installment agreement and 

make the IRS release its levy of his social security benefits, Plaintiff’s claims are 

barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421. The Anti-Injunction Act 

provides that, with limited statutory exceptions not applicable here, “no suit for the 

purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained 

in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom 

such tax was assessed.” 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). The Act’s purpose is to permit the 

government to assess and collect taxes it determines to be owed without judicial 

intervention. Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 7 (1962). 

Plaintiff’s attempt to enjoin the IRS from levying his social security benefit is 

clearly aimed at restraining the collection of taxes. Therefore, the Court lacks 

subject-matter jurisdiction over such claim. See, e.g., Breton v. Internal Revenue 

Case 3:15-cv-01795-BTM-RBB Document 8 Filed 04/19/16 Page 2 of 4
3

15cv1795 BTM(RBB)

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

27

28

Serv., 2013 WL 1788536, at *2 (D.N.H. Apr. 10, 2013) (dismissing plaintiff’s claims 

seeking to enjoin levy on bank account for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Priest 

v. Internal Revenue Serv., 2006 WL 1989893, at *8 (C.D. Ill. July 13, 2006) 

(dismissing claims requesting a court order revoking lien or levy). Similarly, 

Plaintiff’s claim for reinstatement of his installment agreement seeks specific 

performance and is a form of injunctive relief that falls within the scope of the AntiInjunction Act. See Grant v. United States, 289 F. Supp. 2d 1361, 1367 (S.D. Fla. 

2003) (dismissing claim for specific performance of installment agreement for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction).

In Enochs, the Supreme Court construed the Anti-Injunction Act as including 

an equitable exception under which the plaintiff can file an action where the 

taxpayer shows that “under no circumstances could the Government ultimately 

prevail.” 370 U.S. at 7. The government has submitted evidence that Plaintiff 

breached the installment agreement by submitting a payment that was dishonored 

in 2013 and by failing to pay his federal tax liabilities on time for tax years 2012 

and 2013. (Breed Decl. ¶¶ 6.d, e.) The Court does not make any finding as to 

whether Plaintiff breached the installment agreement, but concludes that Plaintiff 

has not shown that the Government could not prevail on the merits. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs’ claims to reinstate his installment agreement and to enjoin the levy of his 

social security benefits are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiff also has a claim to “credit my account with all of the payments I have 

made thru 2015.” To the extent that Plaintiff believes that specific payments he 

has made have not been credited, Plaintiff can raise such issues in a Collection 

Due Process Hearing. See Comfort Plus Health Care, Inc. v. Commissioner of 

Internal Revenue Serv., 2005 WL 1656914, at *4 (D. Minn. July 14, 2005) 

(taxpayer claimed in CDP hearing that IRS failed to credit overpayments). Appeals 

from CDP determinations are heard by the Tax Court. 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d). This 

Court lacks jurisdiction to determine whether payments made by Plaintiff have 

Case 3:15-cv-01795-BTM-RBB Document 8 Filed 04/19/16 Page 3 of 4
4

15cv1795 BTM(RBB)

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

27

28

been properly credited. 

To the extent Plaintiff claims that the installment agreement of 2009 is still 

valid and thus he has overpaid and is entitled to a refund, Plaintiff can file a tax 

refund suit. “A taxpayer seeking a refund of taxes erroneously or unlawfully 

assessed or collected may bring an action against the Government either in United 

States district court or in the United States Court of Federal Claims.” 28 U.S.C. §

1346(a)(1). However, before bringing such an action, a claim for refund or credit 

must have been filed with the IRS in accordance with applicable statutes and 

regulations. 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). The Complaint does not indicate that Plaintiff 

has filed an administrative claim for a refund with the IRS. Therefore, to the extent 

Plaintiff asserts a refund claim, the Court dismisses that claim as well. See Del 

Elmer v. Metzger, 967 F. Supp. 398, 404 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (dismissing claim for 

refund because, among other things, the plaintiff had not alleged that he had filed 

a proper administrative claim for refund with the IRS). 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Government’s motion to dismiss for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to 

file an amended complaint. If Plaintiff chooses to do so, the amended complaint 

must be filed within 20 days of the filing of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-01795-BTM-RBB Document 8 Filed 04/19/16 Page 4 of 4