Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-20-01015/USCOURTS-ca13-20-01015-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 212
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

LAMAR ELLIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2020-1015

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:18-cv-01579-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank 

Horn.

______________________

Decided: March 6, 2020

______________________

LAMAR ELLIS, Brea, CA, pro se. 

 MARION E.M. ERICKSON, Tax Division, United States 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by DEBORAH K. SNYDER, RICHARD 

E. ZUCKERMAN. 

 ______________________

Before PROST, Chief Judge, LINN and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 20-1015 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 03/06/2020
2 ELLIS v. UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM.

Lamar Ellis filed a complaint in the United States 

Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the United States 

owes him a refund of taxes for the 1998 tax year. The Court 

of Federal Claims held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Ellis’s claims and dismissed the complaint. 

We affirm.

I

In May 2017, Mr. Ellis filed a tax refund claim with the 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for the 1998 tax year. The 

IRS denied the claim, giving two reasons: the claim was 

filed “more than three years after the due date of the tax 

return”; and the claim was based on a “frivolous position.” 

S.A. 23. 

In October 2018, Mr. Ellis filed this action against the 

United States. As modified the next month, the complaint 

requests an award of $97,753,836 to recover an asserted 

overpayment for the 1998 tax year, among other things.1 

Mr. Ellis attached amended tax return forms for the 1998 

tax year, a 2013 application for a tentative refund, and letters from the IRS denying his May 2017 refund claim. 

The government moved to dismiss the complaint for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court of Federal 

Claims granted the motion. Ellis v. United States, 144 Fed. 

Cl. 548, 556 (2019). The court held that the complaint is 

1 Mr. Ellis was initially joined by two related entities 

as co-plaintiffs, who together sought a refund of 

$969,840,266 for the 1998 tax year. S.A. 12–14. The Court 

of Federal Claims permitted Mr. Ellis to file a supplement

to the complaint, removing the two entities as parties and 

limiting the refund request to $97,753,836. S.A. 47–49. 

Since that filing, the parties and the court have treated the 

two entities as no longer part of the case. 

Case: 20-1015 Document: 41 Page: 2 Filed: 03/06/2020
ELLIS v. UNITED STATES 3

outside its jurisdiction over tax refund claims because Mr. 

Ellis had not fulfilled the prerequisites to maintain such a 

claim. Id. at 553–56. The court entered final judgment on 

August 22, 2019.

Mr. Ellis timely filed a notice of appeal. S.A. 127; 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2107, 2522. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(3). 

II

We review de novo the trial court’s dismissal for lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. See Alpine PCS, Inc. v. United States, 878 F.3d 1086, 1092 (Fed. 

Cir. 2018); Mudge v. United States, 308 F.3d 1220, 1224

(Fed. Cir. 2002). In reviewing the dismissal here, we accept 

as true all factual allegations in the complaint. Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93–94 (2007). Although we generally 

interpret the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff liberally, Durr 

v. Nicholson, 400 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing 

Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9–10 (1980)), pro se status cannot excuse a failure to demonstrate that jurisdictional requirements are met, Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 

799 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The party seeking relief from the 

court bears the burden of establishing the court’s jurisdiction. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 

298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936).

A

A taxpayer seeking a refund of taxes erroneously or illegally assessed or collected may bring an action against 

the United States in the Court of Federal Claims. 28 

U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). But there are two prerequisites to the 

court’s jurisdiction over such a claim. First, the taxpayer 

must have already paid the disputed taxes in full. See 

Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63, 75–76 (1958); see also

Shore v. United States, 9 F.3d 1524, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 

(applying Flora’s “full payment rule” to tax refund suits 

brought in the Court of Federal Claims). Second, the 

Case: 20-1015 Document: 41 Page: 3 Filed: 03/06/2020
4 ELLIS v. UNITED STATES

taxpayer must have timely sought a refund from the IRS 

before suing in the Court of Federal Claims, 26 U.S.C. 

§ 7422(a); specifically, he had to file a refund claim with the 

IRS within three years of the date the return was filed or 

two years of the date the tax was paid, whichever period 

expires later, 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a). 

Considering the complaint, the specific-information requirement of Rule 9(m) of the Rules of the Court of Federal 

Claims, and what Mr. Ellis argued in the trial court, we 

conclude, in agreement with the Court of Federal Claims,

that Mr. Ellis has not met either prerequisite. Mr. Ellis 

has not provided any plausible allegation that he paid the 

tax liability in full. And the refund claim he made to the 

IRS in May 2017 was far out of time. Therefore, the Court 

of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction to hear Mr. Ellis’s

complaint as a claim for a tax refund.

B

In his informal brief, Mr. Ellis argues that the trial 

court erred in not using the “[26 U.S.C.] Section 1045 application for a tentative refund” and in not requesting information from his past bankruptcy when considering the 

motion to dismiss. Appellant’s Br. at 1. But Mr. Ellis has 

not shown how either action would have cured the jurisdictional deficiencies.

Finally, Mr. Ellis has filed a document, ECF No. 36, 

that we construe as a request for leave to file a motion to 

close the case while granting favorable monetary compensation to Mr. Ellis. We deny the request as moot.

III

Because Mr. Ellis has not shown that he has a claim 

within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, we 

affirm the judgment dismissing the case. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 20-1015 Document: 41 Page: 4 Filed: 03/06/2020