Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-02028/USCOURTS-ca3-14-02028-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Kordell
Appellant
Christopher Kordell
Appellant
Rollock Co
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

No. 14-2028

__________

ROLLOCK COMPANY, A Corporation;

ANTHONY KORDELL, an individual;

CHRISTOPHER KORDELL, an individual,

Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

__________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 3-12-cv-00162)

District Judge: Honorable Cathy Bissoon

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

October 5, 2015

BEFORE: FUENTES, SMITH, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Filed November 3, 2015)

__________

OPINION*

FUENTES, Circuit Judge.

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-2028 Document: 003112119084 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2015
2

Plaintiffs-Appellants, Anthony Kordell, Chris Kordell, and the Rollock Company, 

appeal the District Court’s dismissal of their claims asserted against the United States

seeking recovery of taxes, penalties, and interest, which Appellants allege were wrongly 

assessed against them. The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction.

1

 For the following reasons, we affirm. 

I.

Anthony and Christopher Kordell (the “Kordells”), shareholders and officers of 

Rollock Company (“Rollock”), owned a tract of land in Somerset, Pennsylvania, which 

was leased to Rollock for the operation of its scrap metal business. On September 11, 

2001, the crash of Flight 93 occurred approximately three hundred yards from Rollock’s 

principal place of business. After the incidents of September 11th, the Kordells claim 

that they received a notice from the IRS in early 2002, designating the Rollock property 

as a “September 11th case.” Based on this notice, Plaintiffs claim that they were

exempted from filing federal tax returns and depositing employee withholdings on behalf 

of Rollock and its employees from January 1, 2002 through September 30, 2009. 

Plaintiffs further contend that a safe containing the 2002 written notice was stolen from 

the Rollock property in 2005. Thus, they claim that no formal proof of this alleged notice

from the IRS exists. Plaintiffs also contend that they received no further communication 

 

1 Prior to the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction, Plaintiffs asserted jurisdiction below pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(a)(1) 

and 1367(a). This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Case: 14-2028 Document: 003112119084 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2015
3

from the IRS until 2009, when the agency called to inquire about the status of their tax 

returns. 

After receiving the IRS’s inquiry, Rollock filed its employment tax returns and 

paid the IRS $550,000 in September 2009. Rollock also requested that the IRS credit this 

amount toward its outstanding tax liabilities. However, the IRS later notified Rollock 

that it still owed over $600,000 in outstanding tax liability. Shortly after, Rollock 

submitted an IRS Form 843, requesting an abatement of interest and penalties. Then, in 

October of 2010, Rollock filed an IRS Form 656 Offer in Compromise (“OIC”). In the 

OIC, Rollock offered a proposed monthly payment plan of $10,000 to satisfy its 

outstanding tax obligations. Around the same time, the Kordells settled a Trust Fund 

Recovery Penalty Assessment with the IRS for $219,000. This Assessment encompassed 

certain liabilities incurred by the Kordells as responsible persons of Rollock for unpaid

taxes that Rollock owed from 2007 through 2009. 

Eventually, the IRS rejected Rollock’s proposed 2010 OIC. Rollock then

submitted yet another OIC in 2011, which the IRS also rejected. Although Plaintiffs

argue that Rollock continued to make payments to satisfy its outstanding liability, the IRS 

issued a notice, stating that Rollock still owed the IRS approximately $876,000. The IRS

also notified Plaintiffs that their 2011 federal income tax refund would be applied to their 

default for the 2003 tax year. With their tax dispute unresolved, Plaintiffs filed the 

instant complaint against the government, primarily seeking “recovery of taxes, penalties 

Case: 14-2028 Document: 003112119084 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/03/2015
4

and interest erroneously, improperly, and illegally assessed and collected.”2 At the time 

that the complaint was filed, Plaintiffs claim to have paid the IRS approximately 

$1,057,000 toward any outstanding tax liability. 

II.

In relevant part, I.R.C. § 7422(a) provides that no suit or proceeding shall be 

maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been 

erroneously or illegally assessed “until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed 

with the Secretary.” In granting the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction, the District Court held that Plaintiffs failed to file a timely tax refund

claim with the IRS, as required under I.R.C. § 7422, prior to bringing suit. Although the 

District Court concluded that it is feasible for a party to file an informal administrative 

refund claim to satisfy the claim-filing prerequisite, the Court held that Plaintiffs failed to 

establish communications with the IRS sufficient to demonstrate the existence of such an 

informal claim.3 

 

2

In addition, Appellants brought a claim seeking relief under the Declaratory Judgment 

Act, which the District Court also dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The 

dismissal of that claim, however, is not raised in this appeal.

3 As the District Court noted below, the parties do not dispute that Appellants did not file 

a formal refund claim using the designated IRS form. 

Case: 14-2028 Document: 003112119084 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/03/2015
5

We, too, find that Plaintiffs have failed to show that any “minimum amount of 

communication” with the IRS took place to establish an informal claim.4 As the District 

Court noted, the Form 843 simply indicates that Plaintiffs were seeking a tax abatement, 

not a refund. Moreover, the two letters from the IRS to Rollock informed the company

that the IRS was denying its request for penalty adjustment. Those letters did not, 

however, mention any potential claim for a tax refund. Additionally, the OICs were 

proposed plans for future payments and not requests for refunds. Similarly, neither the 

requests for accounting nor the appeal of the IRS’s treatment of Plaintiffs’ 2011 tax 

refund contain any communication sufficient to place the IRS on notice that Plaintiffs

were seeking a tax refund. In sum, nothing in the record suggests that Plaintiffs satisfied

the IRC’s claim-filing prerequisite before bringing suit in federal court. The District 

Court thus properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 

claims.

III.

We have carefully reviewed Plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find that they 

have no merit. We therefore affirm the District Court’s order for substantially the same

reasons set forth in the thorough and persuasive opinion below.

 

4 See D’Amelio v. United States, 679 F.2d 313, 315 (3d Cir. 1982).

Case: 14-2028 Document: 003112119084 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/03/2015