Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-20-01032/USCOURTS-ca13-20-01032-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark Louis Sanders
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MARK LOUIS SANDERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2020-1032

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:19-cv-01138-EJD, Senior Judge Edward J. 

Damich.

______________________

Decided: April 7, 2020

______________________

MARK LOUIS SANDERS, Trafford, PA, pro se. 

 RICHARD L. PARKER, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BRUCE R. ELLISEN, RICHARD E.

ZUCKERMAN. 

 ______________________

Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK and O’MALLEY, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 20-1032 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 04/07/2020
2 SANDERS v. UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM.

Mark Louis Sanders appeals an order from the Court 

of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his complaint. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On August 5, 2019, Sanders filed a complaint in the 

Claims Court alleging that the United States had imposed 

taxes on him without jurisdiction. On September 10, 2019, 

the Claims Court, interpreting Sanders’ complaint as a tax 

refund suit, dismissed Sanders’ complaint for failing to allege facts necessary to establish the Claims Court’s tax refund jurisdiction. Sanders filed this timely appeal. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION

“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). “We may affirm the 

[Claims Court’s] dismissal on any ground supported by the 

record.” Wyandot Nation v. United States, 858 F.3d 1392, 

1397 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 

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)). On appeal, 

Sanders argues that this is not a tax suit. However, Sanders points to no other statute that would confer jurisdiction 

to the Claims Court over his action.

There is no jurisdiction over this action as a tax refund

suit. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1), “[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.” United States v. Clintwood 

Case: 20-1032 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 04/07/2020
SANDERS v. UNITED STATES 3

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 district court’s 

finding that Sanders has not alleged “any evidence that he 

has pre-paid the principal tax deficiency—the first prerequisite to tax-refund jurisdiction.” Sanders v. United States, 

145 Fed. Cl. 37, 38 (2019) (citing Shore v. United States, 

9 F.3d 1524, 1527 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).

The Claims Court correctly found that “Sanders has 

not established tax refund jurisdiction, or any other basis 

for his suit.” Id. We conclude that the Claims Court’s dismissal of Sanders’ complaint must be

AFFIRMED

Case: 20-1032 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 04/07/2020