IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH 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 Freedom of

Information Act had been followed on their information request. We AFFIRM. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 11, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

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

In 2007, the IRS levied on assets belonging to Ben Williams, Sr. and Diana

J. Williams. The levy was based on allegations 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

Middle District of Louisiana. They sought to recover the funds and to gain

access to documents about an internal IRS investigation conducted as a result

of the plaintiffs’ 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 requested 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 taxpayer may not bring a suit against the IRS seeking recovery of an

allegedly erroneously collected tax without first filing an administrative claim. 

26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). No suit may be maintained until a taxpayer follows the

administrative claims requirements under the statute. United States v.

Clintwood 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: 10/11/2011
No. 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. IRS, 876 F.2d 485, 488

(5th Cir. 1989). No evidence of a proper administrative claim 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 had submitted all documents that were not “records

or information compiled for law enforcement 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 claim 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