NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CAROLINE PEKRUL,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2019-2409

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:19-cv-00613-TCW, Judge Thomas C. Wheeler.

______________________

Decided: February 5, 2020

______________________

CAROLINE PEKRUL, Scottsdale, AZ, pro se. 

 SHERRA TINYI WONG, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by THOMAS J. CLARK, RICHARD E.

ZUCKERMAN. 

 ______________________

Before DYK, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Case: 19-2409 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 02/05/2020
2 PEKRUL v. UNITED STATES

Caroline Pekrul filed a complaint with the United 

States Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the Internal 

Revenue Service, engaging in tax collection, had filed counterfeit securities and billing statements against her. The 

Court of Federal Claims held that it lacked subject-matter 

jurisdiction over Ms. Pekrul’s claims and dismissed her 

complaint. We affirm.

I

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has asserted that 

Ms. Pekrul owes the United States over $4 million in

taxes—and associated fees and interest—for tax years 

2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006. To collect the taxes assertedly 

owed, the IRS has placed liens on Ms. Pekrul’s property 

and has garnished her Social Security benefits.

In May 2018, Ms. Pekrul filed a petition with the 

United States Tax Court challenging the IRS’s assessment 

of taxes for the years 2000–2017. The IRS, acting as respondent, moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction on various grounds. The Tax Court granted the 

motion.

In April 2019, Ms. Pekrul filed this action against the 

United States in the Court of Federal Claims. Ms. Pekrul 

alleges that the United States had “placed counterfeit securities and billing notices against plaintiff and collected 

money from plaintiff without jurisdiction.” S.A. 6. She also

alleges that these actions had damaged her in the amount 

of $4,338,699.89. S.A. 7. Attached to her complaint are, 

among other things, the Tax Court’s order of dismissal for 

lack of jurisdiction and the IRS’s motion to dismiss in the 

Tax Court.

The government moved to dismiss Ms. Pekrul’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Court of 

Federal Claims Rule 12(b)(1). The Court of Federal Claims 

granted the motion, reasoning that Ms. Pekrul had failed 

to establish that she met the requirements for a tax-refund 

Case: 19-2409 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 02/05/2020
PEKRUL v. UNITED STATES 3

suit and had not persuasively articulated an alternative 

theory of relief within the court’s jurisdiction. Pekrul v. 

United States, 144 Fed. Cl. 522, 524 (2019). The court entered final judgment on September 6, 2019. S.A. 1.

Ms. Pekrul timely filed a notice of appeal. S.A. 36; 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2107, 2522. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(3). 

II

On appeal, Ms. Pekrul argues that the Court of Federal 

Claims failed to consider the evidence showing her injury 

and should have considered her claim under the Fourth 

Amendment. 

We review de novo the court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. Alpine PCS, 

Inc. v. United States, 878 F.3d 1086, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 2018);

Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 

2004). In reviewing a dismissal made on the complaint, we

accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93–94 (2007). Although we

generally interpret the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff liberally, Durr v. Nicholson, 400 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 

2005) (citing Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9–10 (1980)), pro 

se status cannot excuse a failure to demonstrate that jurisdictional requirements are met, Henke v. United States, 

60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The party seeking relief 

from the court bears the burden of establishing the court’s 

jurisdiction. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of 

Ind., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936).

A

Although the exhibits attached to the complaint, and 

the dollar value of the alleged injury, might suggest that 

Ms. Pekrul is seeking a tax refund, the complaint does not 

come within the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction over 

tax refund claims. A taxpayer seeking a refund of taxes 

erroneously or illegally assessed or collected may bring an 

Case: 19-2409 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 02/05/2020
4 PEKRUL v. UNITED STATES

action against the government in the Court of Federal 

Claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). But there are two prerequisites to the court’s jurisdiction over such a claim: first, 

the taxpayer must have already paid the disputed taxes in 

full, Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63, 75–76 (1958); second, the taxpayer must have sought a refund from the IRS

before suing in the Court of Federal Claims. 26 U.S.C. 

§ 7422(a). Ms. Pekrul has not shown that either prerequisite was met. Therefore, the Court of Federal Claims 

lacked jurisdiction to hear Ms. Pekrul’s complaint as a 

claim for a tax refund. 

B

Ms. Pekrul’s complaint contains allegations of fraudulent tax collection: it alleges that the government has 

“placed counterfeit securities and billing notices” against 

her. S.A. 6. But a claim of fraudulent tax collection is essentially a tort claim. The Court of Federal Claims lacks 

jurisdiction over such a claim, as it “sound[s] in tort.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1491; see Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 

623 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

C

In her informal brief to this court, Ms. Pekrul argues 

that the Court of Federal Claims should have applied the 

Fourth Amendment, implying that the IRS’s assessment of 

taxes against her, and its use of liens and garnishments to 

collect those taxes, violated her right to be secure in her 

person, houses, papers, and effects. This characterization 

does not aid Ms. Pekrul in identifying a claim within the 

Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction.

Although some claims founded upon the Constitution 

are within the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction, a 

plaintiff making such a claim must demonstrate that the 

source of substantive law she relies upon can “fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the federal government for the damages sustained.” United States v. 

Case: 19-2409 Document: 27 Page: 4 Filed: 02/05/2020
PEKRUL v. UNITED STATES 5

Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216–17 (1983) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). The Fourth Amendment does 

not mandate compensation by the federal government for 

damages sustained. See id.; Brown, 105 F.3d at 623. 

Therefore, Ms. Pekrul’s Fourth Amendment claim is outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. Brown, 

105 F.3d at 623–24. 

III

Because Ms. Pekrul has not shown that she has a claim 

within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, we 

affirm the judgment dismissing the case.

AFFIRMED

Case: 19-2409 Document: 27 Page: 5 Filed: 02/05/2020