### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-30008 Summary Calender

BEN WILLIAMS, SR.; DIANA J. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants

v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE; TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:08-CV-522
Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Two taxpayers appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The district court held there was no subject matter jurisdiction for the taxpayers’ claim for a refund, and the Fr e e d om of Information Act had been followed on their information request. We AFFIRM. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 11 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat thisop inion s houldnot * be publish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-30008 Document: 00511628402 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/11/2011No. 11-30008

In 2007, the IRS levied on assets belonging to Ben Williams, Sr. and Diana J. Williams. The levy was based on all e g ations by the IRS that there were deficiencies from the plaintiffs’ 1998 tax return. The plaintiffs filed this suit in the United States District Court for the M i d dle District of Louisiana. They sought to recover the funds and to gain access to documents about an inter nal IRS investigation conducted as a result of the plaintif

f s ’ allegations of misconduct. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to file a proper administrative refund claim as required by 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). Accordingly, the claims for a refund were dismissed. In the same order, the district court provided the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint and add the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration

as the proper party to pursue their claims under FOIA. The plaintiffs appealed that ruling. We dismissed because there was no final order. After being joined as a party, the inspector general filed a motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ FOIA claims. The district court granted the motion, holding that all requ e s ted documents had been provided except those validly withheld based on an exemption from disclosure. The plaintiffs timely appealed from both orders. The government argues that the plaintiffs have failed to present any meaningful arguments on appeal and therefore have waived the issues presented. We agree the presentation by the plaintiffs is thin, but we will briefly address both of their contentions. A t axpayer may not bring a suit against the IRS seeking recovery of a n allegedly erroneously collected tax without first filing an administrative claim. 2 6 U

. S

. C. § 7422(a). No suit may be maintained until a taxpayer follows the adminis tr ative claims requirements under the statute. United States v. Clintw o o d Elkhorn Mining Co. , 553 U.S. 1, 7 (2008). The plaintiffs failed to establish in the district court that they had filed an administrative claim. The only evidence plaintiffs provided of any communication with the IRS pertained
2 Case: 11-30008 Document: 00511628402 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/11/2011No. 11-30008

to other tax years. A plaintiff needs to have put “the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on notice that the taxpayer believes an erroneous tax has been assessed and desires a refund for certain years.” Gustin v. U.S

. I R S , 876 F.2d 485, 488 (5th Cir. 1989). No evidence of a proper administrative clai m was presented. Thus, the district court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ refund claims. The plaintiffs also seek the production of documents under FOIA relating to an investigation based on a complaint they filed. The relevant inspector general responded that it h a d submitted all documents that were not “records

or information compiled f o r l a w e nforcement purposes . . . reasonably

. . . expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C). The district court analyzed the proof and balanced the c laim of applicability of exemption 7(C) with the public interest. U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press , 489 U.S. 749, 776 (1989). The plaintiffs failed to raise any issue with the district court’s conclusion that the documents were properly withheld. AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 11-30008 Document: 00511628402 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/11/2011