NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

GORDON PEKRUL,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2019-2407

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:19-cv-01234-MMS, Chief Judge Margaret M. 

Sweeney.

______________________

Decided: February 5, 2020

______________________

GORDON PEKRUL, Wittmann, 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.

Case: 19-2407 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 02/05/2020
2 PEKRUL v. UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM.

Gordon Pekrul filed a complaint with the United States 

Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the Internal Revenue Service, engaging in tax collection, had illegally collected some of his assets. The Court of Federal Claims held 

that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Pekrul’s 

claims and dismissed his complaint. We affirm.

I

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has asserted that 

Mr. Pekrul owes the United States millions of dollars in 

taxes for tax years 2002–2007. To collect the taxes assertedly owed, the IRS has placed liens on Mr. Pekrul’s property and has garnished his Social Security benefits.

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

United States Tax Court challenging the IRS’s assessment 

of taxes for the years 2000–2017. The IRS, as respondent, 

moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction on various grounds. The Tax Court granted the motion.

In August 2019, Mr. Pekrul filed this action against the 

United States in the Court of Federal Claims. He alleges 

that the government has injured him “in the amount of 

$9,721,832.93 by collecting assets without jurisdiction.” 

S.A. 7. His damages are the sum of what he states is the 

value of the liens against his property—$9,682,592.93—

and the garnishments of his Social Security benefits—

$39,240.00. Id. Attached to his complaint are the Tax 

Court’s order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, the IRS’s 

motion to dismiss in the Tax Court, and a cover sheet indicating that his suit relates to individual income taxation.

The Court of Federal Claims, on its own motion, dismissed Mr. Pekrul’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. 

Pekrul v. United States, 144 Fed. Cl. 556, 557 (2019). The 

court reasoned that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an illegal 

collection claim or a wrongful levy claim. Id. at 559. The 

court also held that the complaint did not come within its 

Case: 19-2407 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 02/05/2020
PEKRUL v. UNITED STATES 3

jurisdiction over tax refund claims because Mr. Pekrul had 

not fulfilled prerequisites to bring a tax refund claim. Id. 

at 559–60. The court entered final judgment on August 28, 

2019.

Mr. Pekrul timely filed a notice of appeal. S.A. 10; 28 

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

§ 1295(a)(3).

II

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

Claims failed to consider the evidence showing his injury 

and should have considered his 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 

Mr. 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: 19-2407 Document: 24 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). Mr. Pekrul has not shown that either prerequisite was met. Therefore, the Court of Federal Claims 

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

claim for a tax refund. 

B

Mr. Pekrul’s complaint contains allegations of fraudulent tax collection: it alleges that the government has “maliciously” “collected assets . . . without jurisdiction” 

resulting in “ill gotten gains.” S.A. 8. 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). 

In certain circumstances, an action may be brought 

against the federal government to challenge a tax levy, 26 

U.S.C. § 7426; to seek damages for failure to release a lien, 

id., § 7432; or to seek damages for a collection action that 

recklessly or intentionally disregards the law, id., § 7433. 

But the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to hear 

such an action. See Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 

1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 

C

In his informal brief to this court, Mr. Pekrul argues 

that the Court of Federal Claims should have applied the 

Fourth Amendment, implying that the IRS’s assessment of 

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

collect those taxes, violated his right to be secure in his person, houses, papers, and effects. This characterization does 

Case: 19-2407 Document: 24 Page: 4 Filed: 02/05/2020
PEKRUL v. UNITED STATES 5

not aid Mr. 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 he relies upon can “fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the federal government for the damages sustained.” United States v. 

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

105 F.3d at 623–24. 

III

Because Mr. Pekrul has not shown that he has a claim 

within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, we 

affirm the judgment dismissing the case.

AFFIRMED

Case: 19-2407 Document: 24 Page: 5 Filed: 02/05/2020