# FILED

APR 2

## 2 2015



### No. 14-11357 

### (Filed: 

### April 22,2015)

+* ,r* {.* {.* * * * * * :r {.* ,. *!* * :r {<* **:i * *.* * * * *

## ,r ) Claim fOr refund Of in9ome taXeS; Suit 

# ) precluded 

### by action 

### previously 

### filed in 

# ) Tax Court respecting the same taxes; 

# ) I.R.C. $ 6s12(a) 

# Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) 

## Defendant. ) ) ** * ***   ** *,i **,t * {.*,******* *** )&**:F
Kenneth E. 

### Beatty, Jt., 

### pro se, Spring 

### Hill, FL. 

### Matthew D. Lucey,

### Trial Attomey, Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims Section,Tax 

### Division, United States Department 

### of Justice, Washington, 

### D.C., for defendant. 

### With him on the 

### briefs were Caroline 

### D. Ciraolo, Principle Deputy Assistant 

### Attomey General, and 

### David 

### I. Pincus, 

### Chiel Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims Section, 

### United States Department 

### of Justice, Washington, D.C. 

### Of counselwas G. Robson Stewart, Assistant 

### Chief, Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims Section, 

### United States Department 

### of Justice, Washington, D.C.



### OPINION AND ORDER LETTOW, Judge. 

### in this 

### tax-refund case, 

### plaintiff, Kenneth Beatty, Jr., seeks a refund 

### of $110,955.64 

### in income taxes allegedly overpaid 

### for tax years 1999 and

### 2000. Pending before the court isthe 

### govemment's motion to dismiss 

### for lack 

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction pursuant

### to Rule 12(b)(1) 

### ofthe Rules 

### ofthe Court 

### ofFederal Claims 

### ("RCFC"). For the reasons stated,the court grants that 

### motion. 

# 0ffi1ffi1,ru&L U.S. COURT OF 

# ljn tllt @nite! 

# btsttg 

# ['ttttt of

# ftltru[ @lEimfEDERALcLArMs

KENNETH 

### BEATTY JR.,



### UNITED STATES,

### BACKGROUND'

In November 2002, the 

### Intemal Revenue Service 

### ("IRS") issued 

### two statutory notices

### of deficiency to 

### Mr. Beatty, 

### informing him of "a deficiency (increase) 

### in [his] income 

### tax" for the years 1999 and 

### 2000. See 

### Mot. ofthe 

### United States to Dismiss the 

### Compl. 

### ("Def.'s Mot.") Ex. 1 

### (Notices of Deficiency Qrlov. 

### i3, 2002)).2 Aftet receiving the notices, 

### Mr. Beatty and his

### wife, Cheri 

### C.A. Beatty,

### jointly filed a

### petition and then an amended 

### petition in Tax Court challenging the

### deficiencies. See 

### id. 

### Ex.2 (Pet. 

### (filed Feb. 19, 2003) and

### Am. Pet. 

### (filed July 2,

### 2003)). In their petitions, the Beattys disputed 

### "(a) the entire amount that the Commissioner asserts is a 

### deficiency in income 

### tax; (b) the entire amount that the Commissioner asserts is an addition 

### to tax 

### for failure to

### file a

### timely retum of income 

### tax; and, (c) the entire amount thatthe Commissioner asserts is an

### additiontotax 

### for failure 

### [to] pay estimated

### taxes." 1d 

### (Am. Pet. at I

### -2). They averred that the purported 

### deficiency determinations were based on an 

### application

### of 26 

### C.F.R. $

### 301.621i-l(a) that 

### "impermissibly broaden[ed] the scope

### ofthe statute, [26 U.S.C. 

## ('l.R.C.')l $

### 6211(a)(1)(A), that 

### it purports 

### to 

### implement." 

## Id. (Am. PeI.

### at2). Additionally, the Beattys argued that neither 

### ofthem were required 

### to

### file afederal income tax retum because 

### in 1999 and 2000 

### "neither

. . . received an amount 

### of income that 

### obligated [either 

### of them]to 

### fl|.e." 

### Id. (Am. Pet. at4).
On September 

### 24,2003, the Commissioner moved 

### to dismiss the 

### Beattys' amended 

### petition for failure to state a

### ciaim upon 

### which 

### relief can be 

### granted. See 

### Def.'s 

### Mot. Ex. 3

### at 1-3 (Beatty v. Commissioner, 

### No. 002839-03, 

### slip. op. (T.C. 

### Nov. 5,

### 2003)). 

### A hearing 

### to address the 

### Commissioner's motion was held on October 

### 22,2003 before the

### Tax Court 

### in Washington, 

### D.C. See 

### id. at 1

## . The attomey 

### for the Commissioner appeared and presented argument; however, 

### Mr. Beatty was not present atthe hearing, 

### "nor did [he]

### file with the 

### [c]ourt a

### written statement." 

### /d.

## at2. On 

### November 5,2003, the 

### Tax Court issued an order granting the 

### Commissioner's motion to dismiss.

# /d The court did not 

### "catalog [the 

### Beattys'] arguments and 

### painstakingly address

### them," reasoning that

### within the 

### petition and amended 

### petition "[t]here is neither assignment 

### of error nor allegation 

### of fact 

### in support 

### of any

### justiciable 

### claim." 

### /d. The 

### Tax Court determined thatthe Beattys were 

### liable for deficiencies and additions 

### of the

### following amounts: 

### Year Deliciency $

### 66s1(a)(1) 

### addition to

### tax $ 66s4



### addition to

### tax 1999 $31,063.00 s4934.2s $894.28 2000 $21,215.00 $5,303.7s $ 1,1 33.17



### lThe recitation that

### follows does 

### not constitute 

### findings 

### of fact 

### by the court and is 

### provided solelyto establish a context 

### for deciding the 

### currently pending 

### motion. 

### ,Mr. Beatty alleges thatthe IRS 

### failedto issue a statutory 

### deficiency notice 

### for 1999 and 2000 and maintains that 

## "if [he] had taxable income on

### which the IRS believed he owed taxes and had not paid, 

### atax deficiency would have [been] 

### issued." 

### Compl.fl8. The record refutes 

### this iactual representation, 

### however. ,See 

### Def.'s Mot. Ex. 1 (Notices 

### of Deficiency 

### (lllov. 13, 2002)).

### Id. at 3.On January 26, 2004, 

### Mr. Beatty 

### filed a

### motion 

### in Tax Court 

### to vacate the order o1-



### November 2003, dismissing his 

### claims. See 

### Def.'s Mot. Ex. 4 

### (Docket Entties, Beatty \'. Commissioner, Docket 

### No. 002839-03 

### (T. 

### C.)). The

### Tax Court denied his 

### motion on February 

### 18,2004. Mr. Beatty subsequently appealed 

### from the 

### Tax Court's decisions to the 

### United States 

### Courl of Appeals 

### for the 

### Ninth Circuit, but his appeal was dismissed

### for failure to prosecute on December 

### 14,2004, Id.; seealso 

### Def.'s Mot. Ex. 5 (General Docket, Beatty v. Commissioner, 

### No.04-72741(9th 

### Cir.)). Later, when the Commissioner 

### filed anotice 

### of federal tax 

### lien seeking 

### collection of 

### Mr. Beatty's tax 

### liability, Mr. Beatty sought and received a 

### Collection Due Process hearing 

### with the 

### IRS Office of Appeals. See 

### Def.'s 

### Mot. at

### 5. After the IRS 

### Olfice 

### of Appeals sustained the 

### commissioner's lien

### filing, Mr. Beatty 

### filed a

### petition in the

### Tax 

### court 

### in February 2006 seeking 

### review ofthat 

### decision. 

## 1d The Commissioner moved 

### for summary 

### judgment, which the

### Tax Court 

### granted. 1d. Ex.

### 6. Again, 

### Mr. Beatty appealed theTax 

### Court's decision 

### to the 

### United States 

### Court ofAppeals 

### for the 

### Ninth 

### Circuit. See Beatty v. 

### Commissioner,No.07-72873,2009 

### WL 567870, at 

### *1 (9th 

### Cir. Mar. 

### 6,2009). The 

### Ninth Circuit affirmed the

### Tax Court's decision and granted coststo the govemment, 

### noting that 

### Mr. Beatty "was precluded 

### from challenging thetax 

### liabilities for 1999 and 2000 because he had disputed his

### tax 

### liability previously in the

### tax 

### courl|' Id. 

### (citing LR.C. $

### 6330(c)(2)(B)). In due course, the taxes at issue were 

### paid in

### full "as a result 

### of [a] tax credit 

### transler from yea,r 1997 and

. . .notices

### oflevy issued 

### to Scottrade Inc. 

### to surrender 

### Beatty's property or rights to property 

### tothe 

### IRS." Compl. 'll 5. On 

### May 24,2012, 

### Mr. Beatty 

### filed a

### claim 

### with the IRS 

### for a refund 

### in the amount

### of $110,955.64 

### for years 1999 and

### 2000. Compl. 

### fl

### 6. Mr. Beatty 

### identified as the basis 

### for his 

### claim that 

### "any income [he] received 

### for theyears 1999 and 2000 

### [was] nottaxable as contemplated 

### under.

. . 

### [I.R.C. $

### 631." Compl. 

### fl

### 7. According to 

### Mr. Beatty, 

### "[t]he IRS denied 

### [his] refund 

### claim by 

### failing to respond 

### to

## it." Compl. 

### fl 9. 

### Mr. Beatty 

### filed a

### complaint in 

### this court seeking a refund on 

### November

### 21,2014. See 

### compl. Subsequently, onJanuary 

### 23,2015,the govemment 

### filed its 

### motion to dismiss 

### for lack 

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction. See 

### Def.'s Mot. 

### STANDARDS FOR 

### DECISION
In every instance, before proceeding to the merits, the 

### "court must satisfy 

### itself that 

### it has 

### jurisdiction to hear and decide 

### a case." 

### Hardie 

### v. (lnited states,367 

### F.3d1288,1290 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2004) 

### (quoting P

### IN/NIP, Inc. v. 

### Platte Chem. 

### Co.,304 F.3d 1235, 1241 (Fed. 

### Cir' 2002)) 

### (intemal quotation marks 

### omitted). When considering a 

### motion to dismiss under 

### Rule 12(b)(1) 

### for lack

### ofsubject matter 

### jurisdiction, the court

### will "normally consider thefacts alleged in the 

### complaint to betrue and 

### correct." Reynolds v.

### Army &

### Air Force Exch. 

### gerv.,846F.2d746,747 (Fed.Cir. 1988)(citingScfteuerv.Rhodes,416U.S.232,236(1974)). Aplaintiffseekingto establish 

### jurisdiction bears the burden 

### of "alleg[ing] in his pleading thefacts essential 

### to show [subject matter]

### jurisdiction." McNuft v. General 

### Motors Acceptance 

### Corp. of 

### Ind 

### '

### 298U'S' 178, 189 (1936); seealso 

### Reynolds,846F.2dar748.The

### Tucker

### Act,28 U.S.C. $ 13a6(a)(1), grants 

### this court

### jurisdiction to consider federal



### tax-refund 

### claims. See 

### Smithv. United States,495Fed. 

### Appx.44,48 (Fed. 

### Cit.2012); Lerlford \,. United 

### States,297 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2002); 

### McCannv. United States,105 Fed. Cl. 

### 120,122(2012),aff'd,2012WL6839'161(Fed. Cir. 2012);see a/so 

### I.R.C $7422@),o (referring tothe concurrent

### jurisdiction 

### ofthis court, under the 

### Tucker

### Act, and the

### district courts, under 28 

### U.S.C. $ 13a6(a)(1), 

### to consider suits 

### for tax 

### refunds). The ta,rpayer, asthe 

### party seeking redress in 

### this court, hasthe burden 

### ofestablishing that

### jurisdiction exists 

### by a preponderance 

### of the 

### evidence. McCann, 105 Fed. Cl. 

### at 122' seealso Rocovich 

### v. United 

### States,933F.2d99I,993 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1991). To 

### maintain a

### tax-refund suit in this court, the ta.xpayer must 

### first pay the assessedtax 

### in f:ul|, 

### Ledford,297 F'3d 

### at 1382, and

### file an 

### administrative claim 

### for atax refund 

### with the IRS that complies 

### with all regulations, see I.R.C. 5 7422(a); seealso 

### Duffy v. United States,

# - Fed. 

### Cl.

# -, -,2015 WL 648411,

### aI*4 (2015)' 

### "[A] regulation requires the refund 

### claim

### to 'detail each

### claimed ground 

### for a refund, and 

### provide sufficient facts

### to apprise the IRS 

### of its 

### basis."' Cearley 

### v. United States, 1 19 Fed. Cl. 

### 340,344 (2014) (quoting Chicago 

### Milwaukee Corp.v. United 

### States,40 F.3d 373,37 5 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1994) 

### (intum citing Treas. Reg. $

### 301.6402-2(bX1)). 

### If the IRS denies the 

### claim, generally the taxpayer must

### file suit 

### in this court 

### within two years afterthe denial, see 

### I'R.C. $ 6532(aX1)' and then may 

### only raise arguments that were 

### previously presented to the 

### IRS in the 

### administrative claim, Lockheed 

### Martin Corp.v. United States,210 

### F.3d 1366, 

### 1371(Fed. 

### Cir. 2000); see also 

### Ottawa Silica Co.

### v. United States, 699 

### F.2d 1124, 

### Il38 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1983) 

### ("Together, 

### [I.R.C' $ 7a22@)l and [Treas. Reg. $ 301 .6402-2(b)( 1)] preclude a

### taxpayer-plaintiff 

### from substantially 

### varying at

### trial thefactual bases 

### of its arguments

### from those raised in the 

### refund claims 

### it presented 

### tothe 

### IRS."). 

### ANALYSIS
This court's 

### jurisdiction to adjudicate 

### Mr. Beatty's claims is subject 

### to 

### I.R'C' $ 6512' 

### Titled ,,Limitations 

### in case 

### of petition toTax

### court," I.R.C. S6512 provides, in pertinent part: (a) 

### Effect 

### ofpetition toTax 

### Court.-If the Secretary has mailed 

### to the taxpayer a notice 

### ofdeficiency under section 6212(a) 

### (relatingto deficiencies 

### of income, estate,

### gift, and certain excise taxes) and 

### if the taxpayer 

### files a

### petition 

### with the 

### Tax Court

. . . no 

### credit or refund 

### of income tax

### for the sametaxable 

### year

. ,

### ' in respect 

### of which the Secretary has determined the

### deficiency shall be 

### allowed 

### or maile and no 

### suil bythe taxpayer

### for the recovery of any

### part of the tax 

### shall be 

### instituted in qny 

### court

. . . 

### LR.C. $ 6512ia.1 lemphasis added).r 

### All of the applicable circumstances listed 

### in I.R.C. $ 6512(a) are present 

### in this instance. 

### First, the IRS 

### mailed notices 

### of deficiency 

### for 1999 and 2000

### to 

### Mr. Beatty. See 

### Def.'s Mot. Ex. 1 (Notices 

### of Deficiency 

### (Nov. 13,

### 2002)). Second, 

### Mr. Beatty 

### previously 

### filed a

### petition in the 

### Tax Court for those 

### years. see 

### Def.'s 

### Mot. Ex. 2 (Pet. 

### (filed Feb. 19, 2003) and

### Am. Pet. 

### (filed

3None 

### ofthe

### six exceptions 

### listed in I.R.C. $

### 6512(aX1)-(6) to this preclusive 

### limitation apply 

### to 

### Mr. Beatty's circumstances.

### July 2,

### 2003)). Finally, 

### Mr. Beatty's complaint in this court requests atax refund 

### for 1999 and

2000, the same years at issue in theTax Court 

### proceeding. See

### Compl.
Because 

### I.R.C. $ 6512(a) mandates that 

### for claims 

### previously 

### filed in Tax Court, 

### "no suit by the taxpayer 

### for the recovery 

### ofany part 

### ofthe tax [for the same taxable 

### year] shall be 

### instituted 

### in any 

### court," this court is precluded 

### from hearing 

### Mr. Beatty's tax 

### claims. See Wong 

### v. (lnited States,49 Fed. 

### Cl. 553, 554-55 (2001) 

### (holding that suit 

### in 

### Cou( of Federal Claims was barred because

### plaintiffs had 

### previously 

### filed a

### petition in Tax Court relating to the same 

### taxes). Mr. Beatty 

### previously 

### filed petitions in the 

### Tax Court contesting deficiencies 

### for the years 1999 and 2000, and he subsequently challenged the 

### Commissioner's notice 

### of lien in the 

### Tax 

### Court. On 

### both occasions, after 

### receiving an unfavorable decision, he appealed 

### to the 

### United States Court 

### ofAppeals for the 

### Ninth Circuit; in 

### both instances, the Court 

### ofAppeals upheld the Ta"x 

### Court's decision.a Accordingly, I.R.C. $ 6512(a) bars

### this court 

### from having 

### juridical power 

### to adjudicate 

### Mr. Beatty's tax-refund claims. 

### CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated,the government's 

### motion to dismiss is 

### GRANTED, and 

### Mr. Beatty's complaint is dismissed pursuant

### to RCFC 12(bX1) 

### for lack

### of subject matter 

### jurisdiction. The 

### clerk shall enter 

### judgment in accord

### with this 

### disposition.
No costs. 

### It is so 

### ORDERED.

4See26l.R.C. $ 7a82(a)(1) 

### ("The United States Courts 

### ofAppeals (other than the 

### United States Court 

### ofAppeals for the Federal 

### Circuit) shall have exclusive

### jurisdiction to review the decisions 

### ofthe Tax Court."). Judge