# ORIGINAL 3Jn tbe Wniteb**~tates** 

# QCourt ofjf 

# eberal QCiaims

KEITH GOINES, Plaintiff,

v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. No. 15-184T Filed October 7, 2015 

# FILED OCT - 72015 U.S

. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Pro Se; Rule 12(b)(l), Subject-Matter Jurisdiction; Tax Refund Claim, 26 U.S.C. § 6532, 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a); In Forma Pauperis.**~~~~~ ~~** **~~~~~~~** 

### ) Keith Goines, Oxon Hill, M.D., plaintiff prose. CourtneyM Hutson, Trial Attorney, Caroline D. Ciraolo, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Davidl Pincus, Chief, Tax Division, Court ofFederal Claims Section, United States Department ofJustice, Washington, D.C., for defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRIGGSBY, Judge I. INTRODUCTION Pro se plaintiff, Keith Goines, brought this action to recover federal income taxes that he alleges are due him in connection withhis income tax returns for the years 2012 and 2014. The governmenthas moved to dismiss the complaint for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(l) ofthe Rules ofthe United States Court ofFederal Claims ("RCFC"). In addition, plaintiffhas filed a motion to proceed inthis matter informapauperis. Forthe reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS defendant's motion to dismiss and GRANTS plaintiffs motion to proceed informapauperis.

### II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 

### A. Factual Background Pro se plaintiff, Keith Goines, commenced this federal income tax refund action on February 26, 2015. See generally Compl. In his complaint, plaintiffseeks a refund ofcertain federal income taxes that he allegedly paid to the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") during tax years 2012 and 2014, as well as other monetary relief. Id.; see also Pl. Opp. at 1-2.2 Specifically, plaintiffalleges that "[t ]he IRS is keeping [plaintiffs] 2014 taxes for monies owed for 2012 no letter ofdetermination was mailed for both years." Compl. at 1. Plaintifffurther alleges the IRS's decision to retain these funds violates both the United States Constitution and the USA PATRIOT Act. Id. 1. 

### Tax Year 2012 Plaintifffiled his 2012 federal income tax return on or about February 18, 2013. Def. Ex. 1 at 2 (Plaintiffs 2012 tax return). In his 2012 tax return, plaintiffclaimed various child and dependent care credits, as well as the standard deduction for a head ofhousehold filing status. Def. Mot. at 2; Def. Ex. 1 at 2. Plaintiffs 2012 tax return also claimed a tax refund in the amount of$5,814.00. Def. Mot. at 3; Def. Ex. 1at2. On June 24, 2013, the IRS sent a statutory notice ofdeficiency for the 2012 tax yearto plaintiff, via certified mail, to the mailing address shown onplaintiffs 2012 tax return. Def. Mot. at 3; Def. Ex. 2 at 2-3. In the notice, the IRS alerted plaintiffto the fact thatthe IRS had

1The facts recited in this Memorandum Opinion and Order are taken from plaintiffs complaint ("CompL at_"); defendant's motion to dismiss ("Def. Mot. at_"); defendant's exhibits attached to the motion to dismiss ("Def. Ex. at_"); plaintiffs opposition thereto ("Pl. Opp. at_"); and defendant's reply ("Def. Reply at_"). Except where otherwise noted, the facts recited here are undisputed.
2 Plaintiffs complaint is handwritten and difficultto discern. In his response to the government's motion to dismiss, plaintiffstates that he is seeking to recover $16,000.00 from the IRS. Pl. Opp. at 2. Itis unclear how plaintiffarrives at this figure. But, in his response and opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss, plaintiffclaims that he is owed a taxrefund in the amount of$7,491.00 for the 2012 tax year and $5,562.30 for the 2014 tax year. Pl. Opp. at 1. A review ofthe additional documentation regarding plaintiffs tax refund claims provided in the exhibits to the government's motion to dismiss also show that plaintiffrequested a tax refund of$5,814.00 for the 2012 tax year and a tax refund of$5,328.00 for the 2014 tax year. Def. Ex. 1at2; Def. Ex. 6 at 2. In addition, plaintiffseeks to recover $3,500.00 for state income taxes that he alleges he owes to the State ofMaryland, as well as $1,000.00 to satisfy a past due balance owed to H & R Block. Pl Opp. at 2-3.

2determined that plaintiffwas not entitled to claim a head ofhousehold filing status, or to claim child and dependent care credits. Id. The notice also provided that plaintiffcould contestthe IRS's determination regarding his 2012 tax return by filing a petition with the United States Tax Court within 90 days ofthe date ofthe notice, as prescribedby 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a). Id. The notice further provided that the amount ofthe deficiency for plaintiffs 2012 taxes was $7,491

.00. Id
. at 4. And so, the IRS retained plaintiffs 2012 tax refund in the amount of $5,807.00, resulting in a remaining and outstanding balance for unpaid taxes for the 2012 tax year in the amount of$1,684.00. Id. at 5. Plaintiffdid not file a petition in Tax Court contesting the IRS's notice ofdeficiency within 90-days ofthe issuance ofthe notice. Def. Ex. 3 at 1-3; Def. Mot. at 3. And so, on November 25, 2013, the IRS assessed atax against plaintiffin the amount of$1,684.00, plus interest in the amount of$31.29. Id. Plaintifffiled an amended tax return, Form 1040X, for the 2012 tax year on November 25, 2013. Def. Ex. 4. In his amended return, plaintiffclaimed a tax refund in the amount of$5,814.00. Id. On August 4, 2014, plaintifffiled a petition with the Tax Court regarding his 2012 tax refund claim
. See Goines v. UnitedStates, No. 18198-14, slip. op. at 1. (T.C
. Dec
. 30, 2014); Def. Ex. 5. In that proceeding, plaintiffargued that he did notreceive the IRS's notice of deficiency for his 2012 tax returns. Id. at 2. The Tax Court found, however, that the IRS properly mailed the notice to plaintiff's last known address and thatthe notice ofdeficiency was, therefore, sufficient. Id. And so, onDecember 30, 2014, the Tax Court dismissed plaintiffs petition for lack of jurisdictionupon the grounds that the petition was untimely under 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a). Id. at 1-3
. On February 23, 2015, the IRS transferred an overpayment credit in the amount of$81

.00 from the 2014 tax year to partially satisfy plaintiffs outstanding tax liability for the 2012 tax year. Def. Ex. 3 at 2. And so, according to the IRS, plaintiffs remaining outstanding federal income tax liability for the 2012 tax year is $1,634.29. Id. at 4.

32. Tax Year 2014 Plaintiffalleges that he filed his 2014 tax return with the IRS on January 27, 2015.3 Pl. Opp. at 2. In his 2014 tax return, plaintiffclaimed a tax refund in the amount of$5,328.00. Def. Ex. 6 at 2 (Plaintiffs 2014 tax return). As discussed above, the IRS transferred an overpayment credit in the amount of$81.00 from plaintiffs 2014 tax refund to partially satisfy plaintiffs outstanding tax liability for the 2012 tax year. Def. Ex. 3 at 2; Def. Ex. 7 at 1. The IRS has taken no further action with respect to plaintiffs 2014 tax return. Id. 3. Tax Year 2015 Plaintiffdoes not allege that he has filed a tax return for the 2015 tax year, orthathe has filed a tax refund claim for the 2015 tax year. See generally Com pl. The IRS has no record ofa tax refund claim byplaintifffor the 2015 tax year. Def. Ex. 8. B. Procedural Background OnFebruary 26, 2015, plaintifffiled a complaint in this matter seeking to recover a refund ofhis federal income taxes for tax years 2012 and 2014 and other monetary relief. See generally Compl. On that same date, plaintiffalso filed a motionto proceed informapauperis, alleging that he lacks the financial means to paythe Court's filing fee. See generally Pl. Mot. to ProceedIn Forma Pauperis. OnMay 27, 2015, defendant filed a motionto dismiss plaintiffs complaint for lack of subject-matterjurisdiction, pursuantto RCFC 12(b)(l). See generally Def. Mot. OnJune 29, 2015, plaintifffiled a response and oppositionto defendant's motionto dismiss. See generally Pl. Opp. Defendant subsequently filed a reply in support ofits motion to dismiss on July 16, 2015; See generally Def. Reply. The matter having been fully briefed, the Court addresses defendant's pending motionto dismiss. III. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Pro Se Litigants Plaintiffis proceeding in this matterpro se. The Courtrecognizes thatparties proceeding pro se are granted greater leeway than litigants represented by counsel. See Haines v. Kerner,

3 The government maintains that plaintifffiled his 2014 tax return on February 16, 2015. Def. Mot. at 4.

4

### 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (holding thatprose complaints are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"). Nonetheless, "[w]hile a court should be receptive to pro se plaintiffs and assist them,justice is ill-served when ajurist crosses the line from finder of fact to advocate." Demes v. UnitedStates, 52 Fed. Cl. 365, 369 (2002). And so, while the Court may excuse ambiguities in plaintiffs complaint, the Court does not excuse the complaint's failures
. See Henke v. UnitedStates, 60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
. In addition, this Court has long recognized that "the leniency afforded to apro se litigant with respect to mere formalities does not relieve the burden to meetjurisdictional requirements." Minehan v. UnitedStates, 75 Fed. Cl. 249, 253 (2007). For this reason, theprose plaintiff-like any other plaintiff-must establish the Court'sjurisdictionto consider his claim by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Riles v. UnitedStates, 93 Fed. Cl. 163, 165 (2010). B. Rule 12(b)(1) When deciding a motion to dismiss for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdiction, this Court must assume that all undisputed facts alleged in the complaint are true and must draw all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); RCFC 12(b)(l). Plaintiffbears the burden ofestablishing subject-matterjurisdiction, and must do so by apreponderance ofthe evidence. Reynolds v.Army & 

### AirForce Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). And so, should the Court determine that "it lacksjurisdiction over the subject matter, it must dismiss the claim." Matthews v. UnitedStates, 72 Fed. Cl. 274, 278 (2006). In this regard, the United States Court ofFederal Claims is a court oflimitedjurisdiction and "possess[es] only that power authorized by Constitution and statute ...." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co
. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). In particular, the TuckerAct grants the Courtjurisdiction over: [A]ny claim against the United States founded eitherupon the Constitution, or any Act ofCongress or any regulation ofan executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort. 28 U.S.C. § 

### 1491(a)(l) (2012). The Tucker Act, however, is "ajurisdictional statute; it does not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages
.... [T]he Act merely confersjurisdiction upon [the United States Court ofFederal Claims] whenever the



### 5substantive right exists." 

### UnitedStates v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976). And so, to pursue a substantive right against the United States under the Tucker Act, a plaintiffmust identify and plead a money-mandating constitutional provision, statute or regulation, or an express or implied contract with the United States. 

### Cabral v. UnitedStates, 317 F. App'x 979, 981 (Fed. Cir. 2008). C. Jurisdiction InTax Refund Cases With respect to tax refund cases, the Tucker Act authorizes the United States Court of Federal Claims to adjudicate tax refund claims. 

### Ledfordv. UnitedStates, 297 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002); 

### see also Ont. Power Generation v. UnitedStates, 369 F.3d 1298, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 

### Shore v. UnitedStates, 9 F.3d 1524, 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1993). But, the Court's jurisdictionto entertain tax refund cases is limited to those situations where the taxpayer has complied with the relevant provisions ofthe Internal Revenue Code. 

### UnitedStates v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. 1, 4 (2008). Inthis regard, the applicable requirements inthe Internal Revenue Code in this matter are set forth in 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a), whichprovides as follows: No suit orproceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery ofany internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or ofany penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or ofany sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credithas been duly filed with the Secretary, according to the provisions oflawin that regard, and the regulations ofthe Secretary established in pursuance thereof. 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). And so, pursuantto section 7422(a), this Court does not possess jurisdictionto consider a claim to recover any internal revenue tax, unless the taxpayer first files a claim for a tax refund with the IRS pursuantto the agency's regulations
. 

### Strategic Haus. Fin. Corp. of Travis Cnty
. v. UnitedStates, 608 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In addition, under 26 U.S.C. § 6532(a), a taxpayer must wait six months from the date on which the taxpayer filed a tax refund claim with the IRS before filing suit in this Court. 

### See 26 U.S.C. § 6532(a)(l). The only exceptionto this rule, is that the taxpayer may immediately commence suit in this Court ifthe IRS rejects the taxpayer's tax refund claim. 

### Id. And so, the Court must dismiss a complaint seeking a tax refund, ifthe complaint is filed less than six

6

### months after the taxpayer filed a tax refund claim with the IRS, unless the IRS already rejected the claim. Dumont v. UnitedStates, 

### 345 F. App'x 586, 590 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Finally, a plaintiffmust also abide by the "full payment rule," which requires that a taxpayer fully pay the taxes at issue prior to bringing a suit for a tax refund in this Court. Flora v. UnitedStates, 

### 357 U.S. 63, 75 (1958); accordShore, 

### 9 F.3d at 1527 ("The Flora full payment rule requires that taxpayers prepay the tax principal before the Court ofFederal Claims will have subject matterjurisdiction over their tax refund action
...."). And so, the Court does not possessjurisdictionto consider a tax refund claim ifatax deficiency exists. Id. 

### IV. DISCUSSION A. The Court Does Not Possess Jurisdiction To Consider Plaintiff's Claim The government has moved to dismiss plaintiffs complaintfor four reasons: First, the government argues that the Court lacksjurisdiction over plaintiffs 2012 tax refund claim, because plaintiffhas not satisfied his tax liability for the 2012 tax year. Def. Mot. at 6-7. Second, the government argues that plaintiff's tax refund claim for 2014 is alsojurisdictionally barred, because plaintifffiled this claim less than six months after filing his 2014 tax return. Id. 

### at 7-8. The government further contends that plaintiffs tax refund claim for the 2015 tax year isjurisdictionallybarred, because plaintiffdid not file a tax refund claim withthe IRS before bringing this action. Id. 

### at 8. Lastly, the government contends that the Court also lacks subject-matterjurisdictionto consider the remainder ofplaintiff's claims for monetary relief, because plaintiffhas not identified a money-mandating statute or other source oflaw to invoke the Court'sjurisdictionwith respectto these claims. Id. 

### at 9. For the reasons discussed below, the Court agrees. And so, the Court must dismiss plaintiffs complaint for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdiction. RCFC 12(b)(l). 

### 1. Plaintiff's 2012 TaxRefund Claim Is Jurisdictionally Barred As an initial matter, plaintiff's tax refund claim for the 2012 tax year isjurisdictionally barred because he has not satisfied the outstanding tax liability for that tax year. It

### is well established that a taxpayer must pay all outstanding tax liabilities for a particulartax year before bringing a claim to recover a tax refund. Flora, 

### 357 U.S. at 72-73. A Certificate ofAssessments and Payments is sufficient evidence to indicate whether a plaintiffhas satisfied thisjurisdictional

7

### requirement. Rocovich v. UnitedStates, 933 F.2d 991, 994 (Fed. Cir. 1991). And so, the Court does not havejurisdiction over a tax refund claim ifa Certificate ofAssessments and Payments shows that full payment ofthe assessed tax has not been made by the date plaintifffiled the complaint. Id. In this case, the Certificate ofAssessments and Payments for plaintiff's 2012 tax returns shows that plaintiffhas an outstanding balance of$1,634.29 in taxes owed for the 2012 tax year. Def. Ex. 3 at 4. Plaintiffdoes not dispute that he has not satisfied this outstanding balance. See generally Comp!.; Pl. Opp. And so, plaintiffhas not established that the Courthasjurisdictionto considerhis 2012 tax refund claim.4 

### Flora, 357 U.S. at 72-73. 

### 2. Plaintiff's 2014 Tax Refund Claim Is Jurisdictionally Barred The Court also does not possessjurisdictionto consider plaintiff's tax refund claim for the 2014 tax year because this claim is premature. In this regard, title 26, United States Code, section 6532(a)(l) provides that ataxpayer cannot bring atax refund suit in this Court less than six months after the date on which the taxpayer filed a tax refund claim with the IRS. 26 U.S.C. §

### 6532(a)(l) (2012)
. This statutory six-month waiting period is only waived ifthe IRS rejects the taxpayer's tax refund claim, in which case the taxpayer may commence suit in this Court without waiting the full six months. Id
.; Cherbanaeff v. UnitedStates, 77 Fed. Cl. 490, 498 (2007), aff'd, 300 F. App'x 933 (Fed. Cir. 2008). And so, this Court does nothavejurisdiction to consider a tax refund claim that has been filed with the IRS less than six months before the filing ofthe complaint, unless the IRS has previously rendered a decision on that claim. Pacetti v. UnitedStates, 50 Fed. Cl. 239, 249-50 (2001)
. In this matter, plaintiffalleges that he filed his 2014 tax return onJanuary 27, 2015. Pl. Opp. at 2. For purposes ofresolving the government's motion to dismiss, the Court accepts that plaintiff's 2014 tax return also serves as his claim for a tax refund for the 2014 tax year.

4 It also appears that the Court lacksjurisdiction to consider plaintiffs 2012 tax refund claim because plaintiffdid not file a tax refund claim with the IRS, before commencing this action. 26 U
.S.C. § 7422; Strategic Haus., 608 F.3d at 1324. Plaintiffs complaint does not allege that plaintifffiled a tax refund claim with the IRS for the 2012 taxyear. See generally Comp!. Rather, it appears that plaintiffis relying upon his 2012 amended tax return to serve as his tax refund claim for the 2012 tax year. See generally Comp!. For the purpose ofresolvingthe government' motion to dismiss, the Court deems plaintiffs 2012 amended tax return to be plaintiffs tax refund claim for the 2012 tax year.

8Plaintiffcommenced this action on February 26, 2015, less than six months after filing his 2014 tax return. See generally Compl.; 26 U.S.C. § 6532(a)(l). In addition, the IRS has notrendered a decision on plaintiffs claim for a tax refund for the 2014 tax year. Def. Mot. at 8; Def. Ex. 7 at 1. Given this, plaintiffhas filed his 2014 tax refund claim too soon. And so, the Court does not possessjurisdictionto considerthis claim. 5 26 U.S.C. § 6532(a)(l); Pacetti, 50 Fed. Cl. at 249-50. 

### 3. Plaintiff's 2015 Tax Refund Claim Is Jurisdictionally Barred Plaintiffs 2015 tax refund claim is alsojurisdictionallyprecluded. As established above, a taxpayer must file a tax refund claim with the IRS before bringing a claim for a tax refund in this Court. 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). In this case, it is without dispute that plaintiffhas not yet filed his tax return for the 2015 tax year. See generally Compl.; Def. Ex. 8. And so, plaintiffcould not have filed a tax refund claim for the 2015 tax year. Def. Mot. at 8. Given this, plaintiffhas not satisfied the requirement to file a tax refund claim with the IRS before commencingthis action. 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). And so, the Court does notpossessjurisdictionto consider plaintiffs tax refund claim. 

### 4. The Court Also Does Not Have Jurisdiction To Consider Plaintiff's Remaining Claims To the extentthat plaintiffis seeking to recover funds from the government that have not been requested in either his 2012 or 2014 tax returns, his claims are alsojurisdictionallybarred under the Tucker Act. 6 In his oppositionto the government's motion to dismiss, plaintiffalleges that he is seeking $3,500.00 for taxes owed to the State ofMaryland. Pl. Opp. at 3. In addition, plaintiffseeks $1,000.00 for funds thathe apparently owes to H & R Block for tax services. Id.

5 Defendant alleges that plaintifffiled his 2014 tax return on February 16, 2015, a date that is also less than six months before plaintiffcommenced this action. Def. Mot. at 4. In addition, it appears that plaintiffhas not filed a tax refund claim with the IRS for the 2014 tax year. See generally Comp!. As discussed above, filing such a claim is ajurisdictional prerequisite for bringing a tax refund claim in this Court. 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). For the purpose ofresolving the government' motion to dismiss, the Court deems plaintiffs 2014 tax return to be plaintiffs tax refund claim for the 2014 tax year.
6 The government argues in its motion to dismiss that plaintiffstax refund claims, as well as plaintiffs claims for other monetary reliefarejurisdictionally barred because plaintiffhas not pointed to a moneymandating source oflaw to supportthese claims. Def. Mot. at 8-9. But, the government acknowledges that plaintiffmay rely upon 26 U.S.C. § 7422 to bring his tax refund claim, ifthe Court deems plaintiffs 2012 and 2014 tax returns to be plaintiffs taxrefund claims for these tax years. Def. Mot. at 1-2, 9.



### 9Plaintiffalso seeks to recover funds for federal income taxes that he has not yet paid for the 2015 tax year. Pl. Comp!. at 1. Plaintiffpoints to no money-mandating statute or other source oflawto confer jurisdiction on this Court to considerthese claims. 

### See generally Comp!.; Pl. Opp. Rather, plaintiffcites generally to the United States Constitution and to the USA PATRIOTAct. But, neither ofthese legal provisions provide the Court withjurisdictionto entertain plaintiff's claims. In fact, it is well established that a citation to the Constitution, without any reference to a particular money-mandating provision in the Constitution, is insufficientto establishthis Court's jurisdiction. 

### Fisher, 402 F.3d at 1173; 

### Russell v. UnitedStates, 78 Fed. Cl. 281, 285 (2007) ("plaintiffmust establish more than the mere existence ofa statute or constitutional provision to bring himselfwithin thejurisdiction ofthis court"). In addition, the USA PATRIOTAct is not money-mandating statute that confersjurisdictionto this Court and that law does notprovide the Court withjurisdictionto considertax refund claims. 

### See generally 18 U.S.C. 

### § 2712 (provision ofthe USA PATRIOT Act dealing withrecovery for violations). And so, plaintiffsimply fails to meet his burden to showthat the Courthasjurisdictionto considerhis claims for other monetary relief. 

### Minehan, 75 Fed. Cl. at 253. 

### B. Plaintifrs Motion For Leave To Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

### Satisfies The Statutory Requirements Lastly, plaintiffhas filed a motion to proceed 

### informapauperis inwhichhe requests a waiver ofthe Court's filing fee because he lacks the financial resources to pay the fee. 

### See generally Pl. Mot. to Proceed 

### In Forma Pauperis. This Courtmay authorize commencement of a suit withoutprepayment offees when a person submits an affidavit including a statement ofall assets, a declarationthat he or she is unable to pay the fees, and a statement ofthe nature ofthe action and a beliefthathe or she is entitled to redress. 

### See 28 U.S.C. § 1951(a); 

### see also 28 U.S.C. 

### § 2503(d). Due to the Court's summary disposition ofthis case and plaintiff's

### prose status, the Court finds that plaintiffsatisfies the requirements to proceed 

### informapauperis for the purpose ofresolvingthe government's motion to dismiss. And so, the Court grants plaintiff's motion to proceed 

### informapauperis for the limited purpose ofresolvingthe government's motionto dismiss.

10

### V. CONCLUSION In sum, the facts in this case show that plaintiffhas simply not met his burden to show that the Courtpossessesjurisdictionto consider his tax refund and other monetary claims. The Court does not possessjurisdiction to consider plaintiffs 2012 tax refund claim, because plaintiff has not satisfied his tax liability for the 2012 tax year. In addition, the Court cannot entertain plaintiffs 2014 tax refund claim, because plaintifffiled this claim less than six months after filing his 2014 tax return. Furthermore, the Court does not possessjurisdictionto consider plaintiffs 2015 tax refund claim, because plaintiffhas not yet filed a claim for a tax refund for the 2015 tax year with the IRS. The remainder ofplaintiffs claims for monetary reliefare also jurisdictionally barred, because plaintiffhas not identified a money-mandating statute or other source oflaw to invoke the Court'sjurisdiction withrespect to these claims. And so, for the foregoing reasons, the Court: (1) GRANTS the government's motion to dismiss; and (2) GRANTS plaintiffs motion to proceed 

### informapauperis. The Clerk's Office is directed to ENTERfinaljudgment in favor ofdefendant, DISMISSING the complaint. No costs. IT IS SO ORDERED.

11