Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-19-02422/USCOURTS-ca13-19-02422-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tad Alan Patterson
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

TAD ALAN PATTERSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2019-2422

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:19-cv-00843-CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow.

______________________

Decided: May 13, 2020

______________________

TAD ALAN PATTERSON, Eugene, OR, pro se. 

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

Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by MICHAEL J. HAUNGS, RICHARD 

E. ZUCKERMAN. 

 ______________________

Before PROST, Chief Judge, MAYER and DYK, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 19-2422 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 05/13/2020
2 PATTERSON v. UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM.

Tad Alan Patterson appeals a decision by the United 

States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) assessed Mr. 

Patterson with multiple tax liabilities spanning the period 

from 2007 to 2012 and imposed liens on his property. In 

March 2019, Mr. Patterson filed a petition with the United 

States Tax Court, challenging the IRS’s assessment of 

those taxes. The Tax Court dismissed his petition for lack 

of jurisdiction.

On June 6, 2019, Mr. Patterson sued the United States

in the Claims Court. The complaint alleged that the 

United States had “took [Mr. Patterson]’s assets without 

jurisdiction,” apparently complaining about the government-imposed liens, and sought $610,111.96 in damages.

On August 27, 2019, the Claims Court dismissed Mr. 

Patterson’s complaint, holding that he had failed to allege 

the facts necessary to establish the Claims Court’s tax refund or Fifth Amendment taking jurisdiction. Mr. Patterson appeals, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(3). “We review the Claims Court’s decision to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction de novo.” Campbell v. United 

States, 932 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2019). 

DISCUSSION

The Claims Court “can take cognizance only of those 

[claims] which by the terms of some act of Congress are 

committed to it.” Hercules Inc. v. United States, 516 U.S. 

417, 423 (1996) (alteration in original) (quoting Thurston 

v. United States, 232 U.S. 469, 475 (1914)). 

There is no jurisdiction over this action as a tax refund 

suit. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1), “[a] taxpayer seeking a 

Case: 19-2422 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 05/13/2020
PATTERSON v. UNITED STATES 3

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.” United States v. Clintwood 

Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. 1, 4 (2008). However, to 

bring a suit for illegally collected taxes, the taxpayer seeking a refund “must comply with tax refund procedures set 

forth in the [Internal Revenue] Code.” Id. “These principles [also] are fully applicable to claims of unconstitutional 

taxation.” Id. at 9.

On this record, we see no error in the Claims Court’s 

finding that Mr. Patterson has “not provided evidence, or 

even argued, that he has filed a claim for a refund with the 

IRS for any of the six years in question.” Supp. App’x 7–8. 

Nor do we see any error in the Claims Court’s holding that 

“an imposition of taxes is not a taking for Fifth Amendment 

purposes.” Id. at 8 (citing Commonwealth Edison Co. v. 

United States, 271 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). 

Mr. Patterson complains that the Claims Court erred 

in treating this as a tax case. Mr. Patterson alleges on appeal that the government acted “knowingly and maliciously” in imposing the liens in violation of the Fourth 

Amendment. Appellant’s Br. 1. The Claims Court also 

lacks jurisdiction over Fourth Amendment fraudulent assessment and fraudulent taking claims because they are 

actions allegedly “grounded upon fraud” that “sound in 

tort.” Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 

1997); see 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (limiting the jurisdiction 

of the Claims Court to “cases not sounding in tort”).

Because Mr. Patterson identifies no other basis for the 

Claims Court to exercise jurisdiction over his claim, the 

Claims Court’s dismissal of his complaint is

AFFIRMED

Case: 19-2422 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 05/13/2020