# {AL

lJn

# tW 

# @nftr!

# $tttts [.owt of

# felrrsl @lsims 

# FILED '-, ! ,:n,

## ! 

# ,iti'rt + 

### i,

# -! "rbt C



### No. 17-7667 

### (Filed: December 12, 

### 2017) 

### NOT FOR 

### PUBLICATION

* * * * * * * r!* * * * * * * * * * * * {.* * r.* * *** *** * * * *

### * 

### KIRELL FRANCIS BETTIS. Plaintiff * :f

:F

:F DEC 

# | 2 2017 U.S. COURT OF FEDERALCLAIMS

Pro Se 

### Plaintiff; Motion to 

### Dismiss; RCFC 

### l2(bXl); Tax Refund; Flora 

### Full Payment 

### Rule THE 

### UNITED STATES,



# Def-endant. ; * * * t' {. 1. *(* r' {.,i. * *'t'1. *. 1. *! {.* {.* * {.* {.* * * * * * * * * r.

### * 

### OPINION AND ORDER
This case stems

### from an alleged

### wrongful denial 

### by the 

### Intemal Revenue Service 

### ("lRS") of a

### tar refund 

### claim frled by 

### plaintiffKirell Francis 

### Bettis (a{</a 

### Kirell Francis 

### Taylor or 

### Kirell Francis 

### Bettis-Taylor) as trustee 

### of the 

### Kirell Francis 

### BettisTrust (the 

### "Trust"). Plaintiff seeks the refund 

### ofan alleged $1,208,796,038 overpayment 

### ofpayroll and income taxes 

### for the 2015 tax 

### year. Defendant seeks dismissal 

### ofthe suit under 

### Rule 12(b)(1) 

### of the Rules 

### ofthe United States Court 

### of Federal

### Claims 

### ("RCFC"). As explained 

### below, because

### plaintiff has not paid his

### tax 

### liability prior to seeking 

### reliefin the 

### United States Court 

### ofFederal Claims ("Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims"), the court lacks 

### jurisdiction to entertain 

### plaintiffs claims and therefore must dismiss 

### plaintiff scomplaint. 

## I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that he owns a

### financial instrument 

### worth $850

### billion, from which he derives an annual

### fiduciary fee 

### of$5,162,202,116. Compl. 

### tffl 

### 1-2. The "asset" is 

### purportedly a 

### "Floating Irrevocable Letter 

### of 

### Credit" issued by the State

### of Califomia on

### April 4, 1878 (the 

### "Instrument"), and was intended to be a 

### "thirty-year public finance 

### transaction" effective beginning on 

### "the first date 

### ofbookkeeping 

### ofany credit transaction 

### with any 

### public or 

### private person or 

### entity," but no later

### than 

### April4,2045. Pl.'s Resp.

### to 

### Def.'s Mot.to Dimiss ("P1.'s Resp.") 

### Ex.

### A at 

### 13.t The Instrument had 

### previously been 

### "lost" but was later 

### "found" by



# ' The 

### exhibits attached to 

### plaintiff s response were 

### not separately 

### numbered. 

### Plaintiff instead numbered his response and attached 

### exhibits consecutively, as

### ifthey were

### all one 

### document. The court refers 

### to the page numbers designated by 

### plaintiff



## ?ul,? 1q58 0000 13qE 0553

### plaintiff. Compl. Ex.

### A at

### 6.2 The Instrument provides 

### for its possessor

### to sign the name 

### of

Califomia Govemor

### William Irwin "on [the 

### govemor's] 

### behalf'and to

### affix the name 

### of the possessor

### to the face 

### ofthe Instrument.3 Pl.'s Resp. 

### Ex.

### A at 

### 13. Plaintiff appears to have signed 

### William Irwin's name and 

### affixed the name 

### of theTrust 

### tothe face 

### of the Instrument on June 17, 

### 1999. 

### Id. Plaintiff subsequently executed, 

### effective January 

### 1,2014, a

### rider that 

### purportedly shortened the

### obligation period 

### to seventeen years, 

### providing approximately $50 

### billion in 

### original issue discount 

### ("OID") interest 

### annually. 

### Seeid.at15-19. The alleged 

### "withholding" 

### of the 2014

### OID interest ostensibly created income 

### for 2015. 

### id. at 12.thevear at issue in the instant case. For 2014 and 2015, the 

### OID interest income 

### flowing from the Instrument 

### totaled $102,720,000,000. Compl. fl

### 2. Of that amount, 

### plaintiffallocated $48,778,898,943 to the 

### United States Treasury and $48,778,898,941 

### to the 

### Califomia Franchise

### Tax Board, and charged the Trust a 

### "fiduciary fee" 

### of $5,162,202,116. 

### Id.nn2, 17. Plaintiff then sought to monetize his 

### fiduciary fee 

### by effecting various tax 

### filings on 

### behalfofthe Trust. 

### Plaintiff filed a 

### Form 941, 

### Employer's Quarterly FederalTax Retum, on behalf 

### ofthe Trust 

### for each quarter 

### of 2015 on February 22,

### 2016. Pl.'s Resp. 

### Ex. B

### at26-33. That same day, 

### plaintiffalso filed a 

### Form 945, 

### Annual Retum 

### of Withheld Federal Income Tax, on behalf 

### ofthe Trust 

### for the 2015tax year. 

### a Id. at

### 33-34. However, no 1099, 

### W-2, or other 

### filing was effected, 

### id. at 35 

### (plaintiff s

### individual Wage and Income Transcript 

### for 2015), and 

### plaintiff did not

### file an 

### individual income tax 

### retumfor 2015, 

### id. at 36 

### (plaintiff s

### individual Tax 

### Account Transcript for 

### 2015). In his

### filings, plaintiff reportedthe

### following approximate tax 

### liabilities:



# o Form 941,

### first quarter

### 2015-$ 1.143

### billion, id. at26; 

# o Form 941, second quarter

### 2015-$1.153 billion, id. at28; 

# r Form 941,

### third quarter

### 2015-$370 million, id. at30; 

# r Form 941, 

### fourth quarter

### 2015-$370 million, id. at 32; and 

## 2 The 

### exhibits attached 

### to plaintifF s

### complaint were 

### not separately 

### numbered. 

### Plaintiff instead numbered his 

### complaint and attached 

### exhibits consecutively, as

### ifthey were

### all one 

### document. The court refers 

### to the page numbers designated by 

### plaintiff. 3 Pursuant 

### to Rule 20 1

### of the Federal Rules 

### of Evidence, the court takes j

### udicial notice that

### William Irwin was indeed the 

### govemor of Califomia on

### April 4, 1878. See.e.s., 

### Califomia State 

### Library, The 

### Govemors' Gallery, http://govemors.library.ca.gov/ (last 

### visited Dec. 11, 

### 2017). Govemor 

### Irwin served 

### from 1875

### until 1880 before passing away 

### in 1886. Id. 

### a The purpose 

### ofForm 945 is to report federal income tax 

### withheld on 

### nonpayroll palments, which areoften reported on 

### Form 

### 1099-MISC. United States Treasury, 

### Instructions for Form 945 (2015), at2.

-2-

# . Form 945, calendar year

### 2015-$1 billion, id. at 33.



### No payment was included 

### with any 

### of the retums, and the IRS assessed interest and penalties

### for late 

### filing, late payrnent, and

### failure to make 

### deposits. 

### ld.

### at26-34. The Trust was also assessed 

### civil penalties 

### for 

### filing frivolous retums

## . Id. at

### 37; Compl. Ex.

### A at

### 6; Compl. 

### Ex. E 

### at 771' 

### Compl. Ex. F

### at 19-20. The

### civil filing penalties were later 

### removed. Compl. Ex. 

### Kat 32; 

### Pl.'s Resp. 

### Ex. B at

### 38. Plaintiffargues that the IRS 

### Notice CP210 

### informing 

### plaintiff that the 2015 

### civil penalties against theTrust were removed 

### effectively 

### "certified" 

### plaintiffas a "bona 

### fide 

### billionaire." Compl. 

### Ex. 

### K at32-34.
On or about 

### May 23,2016, an amended 2015 

### Form 945 was

### filed for the

### Trust. Def.'s Mot.to Dismiss 

### ("Def.'s Mot.") Ex. 7

## at2. The 

### Trust's Form 945tax 

### liability, including interest and penalties, wassubsequently abated in 

### their entiretyfor the 2015 tax

### year. Id,. at 3-4. 

### After the IRS issued notices 

### ofbalance due 

### for the

### Trust's outstanding 

### Form 941 

### liabilities, see. e.g., 

### Compl. Ex. 

### D at 14, 

### plaintiffpurported to pay his 2015 estimated tax 

### liability for Form 1041, U.S. Income Tax Retum 

### for Estates andTrusts, by 

### mailing 

### fow Forms 1041-ES, 2015 Payment Voucher, to the IRS on 

### or about December 

### 31,2016. Pl.'s Resp. 

### Ex. C 

### at 46-47

. As payment, 

### plaintiff attached a "Performance 

### Bondfor Other Than Construction Contracts" to each 

### of thefour 

### vouchers. Id. at

### 49-7l. Each performance bond purported 

### to obligate the 

### Trust to pay the IRS 

### approximately $25 

### to $26 

### billion out of the 

### Instrument. See. e.e., 

### id. at 49, 52. On or about February 

### 2,2017, 

### plaintifffiled Form 843, 

### Claim for Refund and Request 

### for Abatement, seeking a refi.urd

### ofForm 941,1040, 1040X, and 1041 taxes 

### for the 2015 calendar year 

### in the amount 

### of approximately $391

### million. Pl.'s Resp. 

### Ex.D at74. Plaintiff did 

### not provide any basis 

### for the refi.rnd beyond 

### referring to "records on

### fiIe." Id. The IRS denied 

### plaintiffs refund request on 

### March 1,2017, and assessed a $5,000

### civil penalty 

### for 

### filing a 

### frivolous 

### retum. Compl. Ex. 

### M at40-42. 

### Plaintiff responded on 

### March 7,2017 ,contending 

### that the IRS had 

### previously determined his 

### filings were not

### frivolous. Id. at40.
Amended Forms 941were

### filed on 

### behalf of the Trust on or about 

### May 8,

### 2017. Def.'s Mot. Ex. 6

### at2-3. The

### Trust's entire 

### Form 941 

### tax 

### liability, including interest and penalties, was subsequently abated

### for eachquarter 

### ofthe 2015 tax 

### year.s Def.'s 

### Mot. Exs. 3-6. 

### Plaintiffthen filed a 

### Form 1041 on 

### behalfofthe Trust for the 2015 calendar

### year. Pl.'s Resp. 

### Ex. B at40-44. The

### Trust's 2015 

### Form 1041

### was dated 

### May 22,2017, and received 

### by the IRS on Jnne

### 9,2017. ld,.

### at39-40. The 

### retum reportedthe

### following items:



# o OID interest 

### income-$102,720,000,000;



# . Fiduciary 

### fees-$5,162202,116;

5

### An abatement reverses an unpaid assessment 

### ofa tax 

### liability; it is 

### not a credit as a result 

### of a 

### payment. SeeTreas. Reg. g 30 1.6a0a-1 (a) (201 6).

-3-

# . Income 

### distribution deduction-$48.778.898.941 :



# o Total

### tax-$30,687,1 12,1

### l0;



# . Federal income tax 

### withheld from Forms 

## 1099- $ 102.720.000.000: 

# o Estimated tax 

### penalty-$ 15,408,000,000; and 

# r Refund 

### due-$53,941,101,060.
Id. at

### 40. In

### figuring the

### Trust's tax 

### liability, plaintiffreported $12,834,032,970 

### in "employment taxes" 

### from Forms 

### 941,941X, ard 945. Id,.

### at41. In addition, the Schedules 

## K-l, Beneficiary's Share

### oflncome, Deductions, Credits, etc., attached to the 

### retum showed interest income 

### of $48,778,898,940 to the 

### IRS, $48,778,898,940 to the 

### Califomia Franchise Tax Board, and 95,162,202,116 to

### plaintiff. Id.

### at42-44. Plaintiff alleges that he continues 

### to cause $129,046,224 in 

### payroll taxes 

### to be deposited semiweekly using his 

### "trade secret" method

### of payment, Compl. 

### tf 11,

### which apparently 

### involves issuing "payment bonds" against the Instrument. 

### Plaintiff filed suit in this court on June 6, 2017, seeking a refund 

### of $ 1,208,796,03 8 

### in overpaid taxes as a result 

### ofhis $5.2 

### billion "frduciary 

### fee." Compl.

### 4. Defendant moved to dismiss the suit on Septemb er 27 ,2017 ,arguing generally that neither 

### plaintiff nor theTrust ever paid any 

### tax 

### liabilities, and thus this court lacks

### jurisdiction to entertain 

### plaintiffs complaint. Def.'s 

### Mot. 

### 3. The 

### motion is 

### now

### fully briefed. andthe court considers

### oral arsument unnecessary. 

# II, LEGALSTANDARDS 

## A. Pro Se 

### Plaintiffs
Pro se pleadings are 

### "held to less stringent standards than

### formal pleadings drafted 

### by lawyers" and are 

### "to be 

### liberally construed." Erickson 

### v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per 

### curiam) (intemal quotation marks 

### omifted). However, the 

### "leniency afforded 

### to a 

### pro se

### litigant with respect 

### to mere 

### formalities does not relieve the 

### bwden to meet

### jurisdictional requirements." Minehan 

### v. United States, 75 Fed. 

### Cl.249,253 (2007); accord Henke 

### v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995) 

### ("The fact

### that [the

### plaintifl acted p1959 

### in the

### drafting of his 

### complaint may 

### explain its ambiguities, but 

### it does not excuse its

### failures, 

### if such there 

### be."). In other words, a

### oro se

### plaintiff is 

### not excused 

### from its burden 

### ofproving, by a preponderance 

## of evidence,that the court possesses 

### jurisdiction. See 

### McNutt v. Gen. 

### Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 

### U.S. 178, 179 (1936); Banks

### v. United Stares,741F.3d 1268, 1277 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2014) 

### (citing Reynolds 

### v.

### Armv 

### &Air Force 

### Exch. Serv. 

### ,846 F.2d746,748 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1988)).



### -4-

## B. Standard of Review 

### Under RCFC 

### 12(bxl)
In determining whether subject matter

### jurisdiction exists, the court 

### "must accept astrue 

### all undisputed facts asserted in the 

### plaintiffs complaint and draw 

### all reasonable inferences 

### in favor 

### ofthe 

### plaintiff." Trusted 

### Inte$ation. lnc. v. United States, 659 

### F.3d 1159, 

### 1163(Fed.Cir. 2011). With respect 

### to a

### motion to dismiss 

### for lack of subject matter

### jurisdiction pursuantto 

### RCFC 12(bX1), the 

### plaintiffbears the burden 

### ofproving, by a preponderance 

### of evidence,that the court possesses subject matter

### jurisdiction. 

### Id. The court is not 

### limited to the pleadings 

### in considering subject matter j

### urisdiction. Banks,741 

### F.3dat1277; Pucciariello v. 

### United States, 116 Fed. 

### Cl.390,400 (2014). 

### Ifthe court 

### finds that 

### it lacks subject matter

### jurisdiction over a 

### claim, RCFC 12(h)(3) requires the court 

### to dismiss that 

### claim. 

## C. Subject 

### Matter Jurisdiction
Whether the court possesses 

### jurisdiction to decide the merits 

### of a case is a 

### "threshold 

### matter." Steel Co.

### v. Citizens 

### for a Better 

### Env't, 523 

### U.S. 83,94-95 

### (1998). Subject matter 

### jurisdiction carurot be

### waived or

### forfeited because 

### it "involves a

### court's power to hear a case." 

### United States 

### v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 

### 625,630 (2002), ouoted in Arbaugh 

### v.

### Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 

### 500,514(2006). "Without 

### jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at

### all in any cause. 

### Jurisdiction is power 

### to declare the 

### law, and when 

### it ceases

### to exist, the

### only function remaining to the 

### court is that 

### of announcing thefact and dismissing the 

### cause." Ex parte 

### McCardle, 74 

### U.S. (7 WalD 506, 514 

### (1868). Therefore, 

### it is 

### "an 

### inflexible matter that must be considered before proceeding 

### to evaluate the merits 

### of a

### case." Matthews 

### v. United States,72Fed. 

### CI.274,278 (2006); accord 

### K-Con Bldq. S),s.. Inc. 

### v. United States,778F.3d 1000, 1004-05 (Fed. 

### Cir.20l5). Either parry, or the court sua sponte, may challengethe 

### court's subject matter j

### urisdiction at any time. Arbaueh, 546 U.S. at506. 

## D. Tucker 

### Act
The 

### ability of the Court 

### ofFederal Claims 

### to entertain suits against the 

### United States is 

### limited. "The United States, as sovereign, is immune 

### from suit save as 

### it consents to be sued." 

### United States 

### v. Sherwood, 312 

### U.S. 584, 586 

### (1941). The

### waiver of 

### immunity "may not be inferred, but must be 

### unequivocally expressed." United States 

### v. White Mountain Apache

### Tribe, 

### 537U.S.465,472 (2003). Further, 

### "[w]hen waiver legislation contains a statute 

### of limitations, the 

### limitations provision constitutes a

### condition on the 

### waiver of sovereign 

### immunity." Block v. 

### North Dakota ex 

### rel. Bd. 

### ofUniv. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 

### 273,287 (1983).
The Tucker 

### Act, the 

### principal statute goveming the

### jurisdiction 

### ofthis court, waives sovereign 

### immunity for claims against the 

### United States, 

### not sounding 

### in tort, that arefounded uponthe

### constitution, afederal statute or 

### regulation, or an express 

### or implied contract 

### with the 

### United States. 28 

### U.S.C. $ 

### 1491(a(1) (2012); 

### White Mountain, 537 U.S. at

### 472. However, the Tucker 

### Act is merely 

### ajurisdictional statute and "does 

### not create any substantive 

### right enforceable against the 

### United States

### for money 

### damages." United States 

### v. Testan, 

### 424U.5. 392,398 

### (1976). Instead, the substantive 

### right must appear 

### in another source 

### of law, such as a



### -5-"money-mandating 

### constitutional provision, statute or regulation that has been

### violated, or an

express 

### or implied contract 

### with the 

### United States." Loveladies 

### Harbor. Inc.v. 

### United States, 27 

### F.3d 1545, 1554 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1994) (en banc). 

## E. Tax 

### Refund Suits Congress has

### ganted the Court 

### of Federal Claims the 

### authority to entertain tax 

### refund 

### suits. 28 

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

### United States 

### v. Clintwood Elkhom 

### Minins Co., 553 

### U.S. 

### 1,4 (2008). To 

### bring atax refund suit, a

### plaintiffmust:



# . make 

### full payment 

### of its tax 

### liabilities, Flora 

### v. United States, 3s7 U.S. 63, 7s 

### (19s8); 

# r file a

### timely claim for refund 

### with the IRS, 

### I.R.C. g 7422(a) (2012); anq 

# o file a

### timely complaint after the refund 

### claim is denied

### or deemed denied, 

### I.R.C. g 6532(a). 

### Plaintiffs 

### filing atax refund suit in the Court 

### of Federal Claims must include the

### following with the 

### complaint: 

### (1) a copy 

### ofthe claim for refund, and



### (2) a statement 

### identifying: 

### (A) the tax year(s) 

### for which a refund is sought; 

### (B) the amount, date, and place

### ofeach payment 

### to be refirnded; 

### (C) the date and place the 

### retum was 

### filed, 

### if any; 

### (D) the name, address, and 

### identification number (under seal)

### ofthe taxpayer(s) appearing on the 

### retum; 

### (E) the date and place the 

### claim for refund was 

### frled; and 

## (F) the 

### identification number (under seal) 

### of each 

### plaintiff, 

# if different from the 

### identification number 

### of the taxDaver. RCFC 9(m).

-6-

# III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffhas substantially 

### complied

### with the pleading requirements 

### of RCFC 

### 9(m). In addition, the court assumes 

### (without deciding) that 

### plaintiffhas satisfied the second and

### third jurisdictional 

### prerequisites-filing a

### timely refund 

### claim 

### with the IRS and

### filing a

### timely complaint

### following denial 

### ofthat

### claim-because (1) taxes were allegedly paid on December 

### 31,2016, (2) 

### plaintifffrled a refund 

### claim 

### with the IRS on February 

### 2,2017, (3) the refund 

### claim was denied on 

### March 1,2017, and (4) 

### plaintiff s

### complaint was 

### filed in this court on June 6, 

### 2017.o However, that does not end the court's 

### jurisdictional 

### inquiry. Rather,the court must

### still determine whether the 

### Trust has

### fully paid its tax 

### liabilities prior to the

### filing of the complaint.
Under the

### fuIl payment 

### rule, a court's 

### jurisdiction overtax refund claims is 

### limited to those claims where the taxpayer has

### fully paid 

### all taxes assessed 

### for the tax year at issue 

### prior to 

### filing suit. Flora, 357 U.S. at

### 75. In other words, 

### "payment ofthe assessedtaxes 

### in

### full is a prerequisite to 

### bringing a refund 

### claim." Ledford v. United States,297 

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

### Cir. 2002); accord

### Artuso v. 

### United States, 80 Fed. 

### Cl. 336,338 (2008) 

### ("A refi.rnd suit is exactly what the descriptive term 

### implies. Under the 

### 'full payment 

### rule' a

### plaintiff must have

### fully paid thetax, pena.lties, and interest at issue."). 

### Plaintiffalleges that defendant is in possession 

### of"money had and received 

### from 

### plaintiff," Pl.'s Resp. 1, as a result 

### of the purported performance bonds that

### plaintiff has posted. 

### Plaintiffis correct that remittance 

### ofa bond can be used

### to satisfy tax 

### liabilities (although the term 

### "bond" is no longer 

### used). Pursuant 

### to I.R.C. $ 6603(a), taxpayers 

### "may make a cash deposit_.

. .to pay any 

### tax

. . .

### which has not been assessedatthe 

### time ofthe

### deposit" (emphasis 

### added).' Deposits 

### not used

### for the payment 

### of tax may be refunded upon 

### request. I.R.C. $

### 6603(c). Taxpayers may make such a deposit 

### by 

### "remitting tothe 

### [IRS]

. . . a check or a money order accompanied by a

### written statement desigrrating the remittance as a

### deposit. The 

### wdtten statement also must 

### include: (a) [t]he Ope(s) 

### oftax; (b) [t]hetax year(s); and 

### (c) [a] statement

. . .

### identifuing the amount 

### of and basis 

### for

### tle disputable 

### tax." Rev. Proc. 2005- 18, $4.01(1), 

### 2005-l C.B.

### 798. Remittances not designated as a deposit are treated as payments and applied against outstanding tax 

### liabilities, including penalties and 

### interest. 

### Id. $

### a.01(2). The term "cash 

### bond" was 

### previously used, in now-superseded Revenue Procedure 84-52, 

### l9g4-1 C.B. 551, 

### to describe deposits made 

### to suspend interest 

### accrual. 

### Id. $2.06. 

### Plaintiff is also correct that 

### "[u]sing an

### eligible obligation instead 

### of asurety bond

### for security is the same as 

### using[, among other 

### options,] 

### cash." 31U.S.C. $9303(c)(2012). 0 

### Plaintiffdoes not appear

### to have 

### filed a

### valid refund 

### claim pursuant

### to Treas. Reg. g

### 301.6402-2(b)(1). However, becausedefendant did 

### not contest the

### validity of

### plaintiffs refund claim, the court assumes 

### (without deciding) that 

### plaintiffs refund 

### claim was

### valid. 

### 7 I.R.C. $ 7103 describes several situations 

### in which the IRS may accept a

### bond. None 

### ofthese situations is applicable to the instant 

### case. For example, pursuant

### to I.R.C. $ 7485(a), taxpayers may

### file abond 

### to stay assessment and 

### collection 

### oftax deficiencies 

### during the pendency

### of an appeal 

### of a

### United States 

### Tax Court decision.

-7-

### Plaintiff asserts that the purported performance bonds hesubmitted 

### with Forms 

### l04l-ES are



### eligible obligations, and thus constituted payment 

### ofhis tax 

### liabilities. Pl.'sResp.5. However, 

### plaintiffs reasoning is

### offpoint for two reasons. 

### First, LR.C. $ 6603 provides that deposits must be made 

### in cash, and Revenue Procedure 2005-18 makes no allowance 

### for posting a surety bond (or any other

### tlpe of bond) 

### in iieu of a check or money 

### order. Second, even 

### if asurety bond was permissible, an 

### "eligible obligation" equiva.lent must, among other requirements, "have amarket value that is equal 

### to or greater than the amount 

### ofthe required surety 

### bond," 

### with the market value 

### ofthe

### obligation being "determined by the Secretary 

### ofthe

### Treaswy." 31 U.S.C. $

### 9303(aX2). The IRS, 

### which is under the 

### direction 

### ofthe Secretary 

### ofthe Treasury, has 

### effectively determined that the 

### "bonds" submitted by 

### plaintiffhave no market value. 

### Plaintiffs tax refund case thus 

### boils down to the value 

### of

### plaintiff spurported bonds, 

### which depend on the value 

### of the 

### Instrument. The court finds thatthe 

### Instrument-and, by extension, 

### plaintiffs *bonds"-are entirely 

### frivolous in 

### nature. Frivolous claims include those that describe 

### "fantastic or delusional 

### scenarios." Neitzkev.

### Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989); accord

### Taylor v. 

### United States, 568 F.

### App'x 890, 891 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2014) (unpublished decision) 

### ("Frivolous complaints include those in 

### which the factual allegations asserted are so unbelievable that there is no need 

### for an

### evidentiary hearing 

### to determine 

### their

### veracity."). 

### plaintiffs allegations conceming the 

### Instrument-that aperson can generate $850

### billion simply by 

### "finding" a

### writing and 

### affrxing the signature 

### of a govemor 

### who has been dead

### for over a 

### centrfy-amount to a quintessential 

### frivolous claim. In otherwords, the Instrument has novalue andthus cannot be used as avehicle to oav tax 

### liabilities. Plaintiff sclaims are

### wholly meritless. 

## IV. CONCLUSION
The court has considered

### all of the 

### parties' arguments. To the extent not discussed herein, they are unpersuasive,

### without merit, or 

### immaterial. 

### Plaintiffhas failedto demonstrate that he paid the tax 

### liabilities at issue 

### prior to 

### initiating the instant refund 

### action. PlaintifF sclaims before this court are so 

### implausible and devoid 

### of merit as

### to not give rise 

### to afederal 

### contoversy. Therefore, the court 

### GRANTS defendant's 

### motion to dismiss 

### for lack 

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction. The court also 

### DENIES AS

## Moor all other pending motions. 

### PlaintifFs complaint is 

### DISMISSED 

## wITHour PREJUDICE. No costs. The 

### clerk is directed 

### to enter

### judgment accordingly. 

### IT IS SO 

### ORDERED.

-8-