NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

JANICE SUE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2020-1473

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:19-cv-01353-NBF, Senior Judge Nancy B. Firestone.

______________________

Decided: August 25, 2020

______________________

JANICE SUE TAYLOR, Florence, AZ, pro se. 

 JANET A. BRADLEY, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. 

Also represented by JOAN I. OPPENHEIMER, RICHARD E.

ZUCKERMAN. 

 ______________________

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

Case: 20-1473 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 08/25/2020
2 TAYLOR v. UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM.

Janice Sue Taylor appeals from a final decision of the 

U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissing her complaint for 

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Taylor v. United States, 

No. 19-1353-T, 2020 WL 983245 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 27, 2020). 

Because we agree that the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction 

over Taylor’s complaint, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

In 2010, Taylor was convicted on eight counts of tax 

evasion and willful failure to file tax returns between 2003 

and 2006. She was sentenced to 78 months of incarceration, which she has completed, and ordered to pay 

$2,234,219 in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service 

(IRS). 

In 2019, Taylor filed a complaint in the Claims Court,1

seeking $15 million for the government’s taking of her assets “maliciously and with full knowledge . . . without jurisdiction to do so.” Complaint at 1, Taylor v. United 

States, No. 19-1353-T (Fed. Cl. Sept. 5, 2019). In Taylor’s 

view, the government failed to comply with I.R.C. §§ 6212 

and 6213 and therefore lacked entitlement to charge her 

with tax evasion or to collect taxes from her. Taylor also 

sought damages for fraud or unlawful imprisonment.

The Claims Court dismissed all counts of Taylor’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, the court dismissed Taylor’s claims based on the Internal Revenue Code 

because its jurisdiction to hear such tax cases is limited to 

actions seeking the refund of taxes, penalties, and interest 

1 Taylor also sought relief in other forums, including 

the United States Tax Court. Relevant here, in 2018, Taylor filed a petition in the Tax Court, also challenging the 

IRS’s failure to comply with I.R.C. §§ 6212 and 6213, but 

that petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

Case: 20-1473 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 08/25/2020
TAYLOR v. UNITED STATES 3

paid to the government. Taylor’s unlawful imprisonment 

and fraud claims were dismissed because they are tort 

claims outside the jurisdiction of the Claims Court.

Taylor appealed, and we have jurisdiction over the 

Claims Court’s decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION

We review the Claims Court’s decision regarding its jurisdiction without deference because a determination of the 

court’s jurisdiction is a question of law. Hanlin v. United 

States, 214 F.3d 1319, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

In this appeal, Taylor argues that her due process 

rights were violated because the government failed to comply with I.R.C. §§ 6212 and 6213 in the proceedings leading 

to her conviction. According to Taylor, in dismissing her 

Tax Court action, the government “agreed” that it had no 

jurisdiction over her from 2000 to 2018 because it failed to 

send required notices. Reply Br. 4. She maintains that she 

is not seeking a refund and that her claim is a specialized 

one based on I.R.C. §§ 6212 and 6213 that falls within the 

Claims Court’s jurisdiction. Reply Br. 2. 

The government responds that I.R.C. §§ 6212 and 6213 

are not money-mandating statutes and cannot provide jurisdiction over Taylor’s claims in the Claims Court. For 

Taylor’s other claims, the government submits that they 

are either tort claims or Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment 

claims outside of the Claims Court’s jurisdiction.

We agree with the government. The Tucker Act is the 

primary statute conferring tax jurisdiction on the Claims 

Court. See Taylor v. United States, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359 

(Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (2000)). But 

the Tucker Act is only a jurisdictional statute, and “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). Thus, “a plaintiff must 

identify a separate source of substantive law that creates 

Case: 20-1473 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 08/25/2020
4 TAYLOR v. UNITED STATES

the right to money damages.” Fisher v. United States, 402 

F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. 

Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 217 (1983)). 

Taylor challenges the government’s compliance with 

I.R.C. §§ 6212 and 6213, but neither of these statutes can 

be fairly interpreted as money-mandating. Section 6212 

provides parameters governing the IRS’s mailing of notices 

of deficiency. Section 6213(a) provides a taxpayer with 90 

days after the mailing of a notice of deficiency to commence 

a Tax Court proceeding to challenge the deficiency. Nothing in either section provides a right to damages if the government fails to comply with the stated requirements. 

Taylor’s remaining claims fare no better. To the extent 

she raises tort claims for fraud or false imprisonment or 

constitutional claims for lack of due process, those claims 

are outside of the Claims Court’s jurisdiction. See, e.g., 

Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 

(explaining that the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over 

tort actions against the United States); Smith v. United 

States, 709 F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The law is 

well settled that the Due Process clauses of both the Fifth 

and Fourteenth Amendments do not mandate the payment 

of money and thus do not provide a cause of action under 

the Tucker Act.” (citing LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d

1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995))). 

After the deadline for filing a memorandum in lieu of 

oral argument had passed, Taylor filed a document in this 

appeal reiterating arguments made in her opening brief. 

Extension – Brief Summary, Taylor v. United States, No. 

20-1473 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 17, 2020), ECF No. 18. We have 

construed this filing as a motion to file her memorandum 

out of time, and the motion is granted.

CONCLUSION

Because Taylor has failed to allege any claim that falls 

within the Claims Court’s jurisdiction, the Claims Court 

Case: 20-1473 Document: 19 Page: 4 Filed: 08/25/2020
TAYLOR v. UNITED STATES 5

was correct in dismissing her complaint under 

Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of 

Federal Claims. Accordingly, the judgment of the Claims 

Court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

Case: 20-1473 Document: 19 Page: 5 Filed: 08/25/2020