Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05128/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05128-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States
Appellee
James Widtfeldt
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JAMES WIDTFELDT,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5128

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:14-cv-00008-MMS, Judge Margaret M. 

Sweeney. 

______________________ 

Decided: October 12, 2016

______________________ 

JAMES WIDTFELDT, Atkinson, NE, pro se.

ANTHONY T. SHEEHAN, Tax Division, United States 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendantappellee. Also represented by CAROLINE D. CIRAOLO,

BRUCE R. ELLISEN. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, MAYER, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-5128 Document: 24-2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/12/2016
2 WIDTFELDT v. UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM. 

James Widtfeldt (“Widtfeldt”), an attorney proceeding 

pro se, appeals from the final judgment of the United 

States Court of Federal Claims (“the Claims Court”) 

dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Widtfeldt v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl. 158 

(2015); see also Appellant’s App. (“A.A.”) 1–9. Because the 

Claims Court did not err in dismissing the complaint, we 

affirm. 

BACKGROUND

The facts of this case as reported by Widtfeldt are not 

entirely clear; indeed, the Claims Court noted that

Widtfeldt’s complaint was “unintelligible and convoluted,” 

and that it was required to rely on Widtfeldt’s postcomplaint filings to “fill in some of the many factual gaps 

in the complaint.” Widtfeldt, 122 Fed. Cl. at 160 n.2. We 

glean the following from Widtfeldt’s brief and the Claims 

Court’s opinion.

Widtfeldt’s parents were Albert Widtfeldt, who died in 

1996, and Gusteva Widtfeldt, who died on February 8, 

2006. Id. at 160. In 1998, the Internal Revenue Service 

(“IRS”) initiated an audit to determine whether Widtfeldt 

had purchased certain real property from his parents, or 

instead received the property through inheritance. Id. 

Between 1999 and 2000, Gusteva Widtfeldt made payments to the IRS totaling approximately $193,000 in what 

Widtfeldt asserts were “death taxes” for herself and her 

husband. Id. In 2002, Widtfeldt received a letter from 

IRS appeals officer Arthur C. Welp referencing gift taxes 

and indicating that “[t]he agreement we reached has been 

approved.” Id. Widtfeldt claims that the IRS subsequently determined, on appeal, that his mother’s payments 

were, in fact, an overpayment. Id. 

When Widtfeldt’s mother died in 2006, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued to her estate a notice of 

Case: 15-5128 Document: 24-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/12/2016
WIDTFELDT v. UNITED STATES 3

deficiency for unpaid gift and estate taxes for the tax 

years ending in 2004 and 2006. Id. at 160–61. Widtfeldt 

challenged the deficiency notice on behalf of his mother’s 

estate (“the estate”) in the United States Tax Court (“Tax 

Court”), claiming that the gift and estate taxes due to the 

IRS were previously paid by his mother through the 1999 

and 2000 payments. However, in April 2011, the Tax 

Court dismissed Widtfeldt’s claim on the ground that he 

had failed to prove that the government’s tax liability 

determinations were incorrect, and accordingly enforced 

the tax deficiencies, with penalties. Id. Widtfeldt appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 

which affirmed the Tax Court’s decision. See Widtfeldt v. 

Comm’r, 449 F. App’x 561 (8th Cir. 2012). 

In 2014, Widtfeldt filed a complaint in the Claims 

Court against the United States, Settlement Officer Tom 

Murphy, the United States Treasury, and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Widtfeldt’s complaint specifically sought a federal gift and estate tax refund believed 

to be owed to his mother’s estate in the amount of approximately $193,000, damages in the amount of $900,000, 

and other relief allegedly granted to him by the Tax 

Court. Appellee’s Br. 6–7. The United States moved to 

dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The Claims Court

granted the government’s motion and dismissed 

Widtfeldt’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

The Claims Court concluded that although the Tucker 

Act gives it jurisdiction over tax refund suits, other statutes limit that jurisdiction. Widtfeldt, 122 Fed. Cl. at 

162–63. The Claims Court determined that three specific 

limitations deprived it of jurisdiction over Widtfeldt’s 

complaint: (1) 26 U.S.C. § 6512(a), which bars tax refund 

suits if the taxpayer has filed a petition in the Tax Court, 

because Widtfeldt “previously filed Tax Court petitions 

seeking redetermination of the same liabilities”; (2) 26 

Case: 15-5128 Document: 24-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/12/2016
4 WIDTFELDT v. UNITED STATES

U.S.C. § 7422(a), which sets forth the requirements for 

filing a tax refund case in court, because Widtfeldt failed 

to file a tax refund claim with the IRS within the required 

time period; and (3) 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1), which gives 

the regional Courts of Appeals exclusive jurisdiction to 

review decisions of the Tax Court, to the extent that 

Widtfeldt sought review of the Tax Court’s decision. Id.

at 164–65. 

Moreover, the Claims Court concluded that it did not 

have jurisdiction over the claims against Settlement 

Officer Tom Murphy, the United States Treasury, and the 

Commissioner of Internal Revenue because the jurisdiction of the Claims Court is limited to claims against the 

United States. Id. at 163 n.4. In addition, all of 

Widtfeldt’s remaining claims, relating to, inter alia, “the 

Hatch Act, Lyme and neurogenerative diseases, and 

slavery,” were dismissed because they were “unintelligible

and bizarre, and, consequently, frivolous.” Id. at 166. 

Widtfeldt timely appealed from the Claims Court’s decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(3). 

DISCUSSION

We review the Claims Court’s decision to dismiss a 

claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. 

Waltner v. United States, 679 F.3d 1329, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 

2012). A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, Taylor v. 

United States, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002), and 

“the leniency afforded pro se litigants with respect to mere 

formalities does not relieve them of jurisdictional requirements,” Demes v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 365, 368 

(2002) (citing Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 812 F.2d 

1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).

The Tucker Act provides the Claims Court with jurisdiction over claims “against the United States founded 

Case: 15-5128 Document: 24-2 Page: 4 Filed: 10/12/2016
WIDTFELDT v. UNITED STATES 5

either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or 

any regulation of an executive department, or upon any 

express or implied contract with the United States, or for 

liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding 

in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). The Tucker Act is “only a 

jurisdictional statute; it does not create any substantive 

right enforceable against the United States for money 

damages.” United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 

(1976). “Instead, to invoke jurisdiction under the Tucker 

Act, a plaintiff must identify a contractual relationship, 

constitutional provision, statute, or regulation that provides a substantive right to money damages.” Khan v. 

United States, 201 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 

When a taxpayer is served with a notice of tax deficiency, the individual may: (1) pay the tax, request a 

refund from the IRS, and then file a suit for refund in the 

Claims Court or in a district court; or (2) file a petition in

the Tax Court to challenge the assessment. See Flora v. 

United States, 362 U.S. 145, 163 (1960); Shore v. United 

States, 9 F.3d 1524, 1525–27 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Ishler v. 

United States, 115 Fed. Cl. 530, 534–36 (2014). Pursuant 

to 26 U.S.C. § 6512(a), subject to certain exceptions that 

are not at issue in the present appeal, if the taxpayer 

elects to file a petition in the Tax Court, that individual 

cannot later file suit in the Claims Court or in a district 

court and attempt to recover a refund for the same taxable year. 

Widtfeldt argues that the Claims Court’s dismissal 

should be reversed and that the IRS should be ordered to 

repay any overpaid taxes with interest. He provides no 

persuasive reasoning. The government responds that the 

Claims Court properly considered all relevant facts and 

correctly concluded that it lacks jurisdiction over 

Widtfeldt’s complaint.

We agree with the government that the Claims Court 

lacks jurisdiction over Widtfeldt’s complaint. When he

Case: 15-5128 Document: 24-2 Page: 5 Filed: 10/12/2016
6 WIDTFELDT v. UNITED STATES

received the tax deficiency notice from the Commissioner 

of Internal Revenue, Widtfeldt chose to file a petition in 

the Tax Court contesting the tax deficiency. The Tax 

Court ruled against Widtfeldt, and the Court of Appeals 

for the Eighth Circuit affirmed that decision. Having 

filed that petition in the Tax Court, § 6512(a) barred 

Widtfeldt from pursuing the same refund suit in the 

Claims Court for the same taxable year, unless Widtfeldt 

could establish that one of the statutory exceptions applied. Widtfeldt does not contest the Claims Court’s 

conclusion that the claims in his complaint are the same 

as those presented to the Tax Court, disputing the tax 

deficiency assessed after his mother’s death, and does not 

contend that any of the statutory exceptions apply. 

Accordingly, § 6512(a) bars Widtfeldt from relitigating in 

the Claims Court the claims that he lost in the Tax Court. 

Because § 6512(a) bars Widtfeldt’s suit in light of the 

prior proceedings in the Tax Court, we need not, and do 

not, address the Claims Court’s alternative grounds for 

concluding that it lacked jurisdiction. Moreover, we 

discern no error in the Claims Court’s dismissal of the 

nonsovereign defendants from this action, or its dismissal 

of the remaining allegations as frivolous. 

We have considered Widtfeldt’s remaining arguments, 

but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, 

we affirm the Claims Court’s decision dismissing 

Widtfeldt’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-5128 Document: 24-2 Page: 6 Filed: 10/12/2016