FL OYD B ENNETT- BEY ,

Plaintiff,
v . DOUGLAS SHUL MAN, Commissi oner, Interna l Revenue Ser

vice, De fe nd ant. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT

F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

Civil Action No. 09-963 ( CKK)

MEMORAN DUM OP INION (Mar ch 3, 2010) Plaintiff Floyd Be nnett-B ey filed this action ag ainst the Commis sioner of the Interna l Revenue Service (“I RS”) for va rious forms of r elief r elated to B ennett-B ey ’s tax li abilities. Def endant ha s moved to dismis s the complaint for la ck of subjec t matter jurisdiction and fa ilure to state a c laim upon which re lief ca n be grante d. Be cause the Court lacks subjec t matter jurisdiction with respect to some of B ennett-B ey ’s claims, and be cause Be nnett-B ey has otherwise f

ailed to state a

claim upon which r elief c an be grante d, the Court shall g rant De fe nd ant’ s mo tio n to dis mis s. I. F ACTUAL BACK GR OUND In his Compl aint, Floyd Be nnett-B ey asser ts that he is a “Moorish Ame rica n Citi zen, B e ne fi c iary

of the Gr e at Mo or ish

Es tate Expr e ss T ru st c re ate d b y the tr us tor No be l D re w A li which [w]as ex ecute d May 10, 2000.” Compl. at 3. Be nnett-B ey alleg es that “[s]i multaneous with that cre ation, the trustor (Noble Dre w Ali) also founde d the Moorish Science Temple of Americ a, Inc.” Id. B e nn e tt- B e y a lle g e s th at th e la

nd in t he Expr e ss T ru st i s a

fe e sim ple e state conveyed to Moorish Americ ans. Id. Be nnett-B ey attache d the alleg ed “de ed of c onveyance ” as2

Ex hibit 3 to hi s Complaint. See id. at 4- 5, Ex. 3 . A c c or din gto B e nn e tt- B e y , “ [a]ll re a l pr op e rt y wi thi n th e me te s and

bo un ds de sc ri be d in

Se c tio n # 7 o f t

he De e d o f C onve nc y

is ( Expr e ss T ru st Property ) pre sently

owned by

the Moorish Science Temple of America , Inc.” Id. at 6. Section 7
re a ds a s f oll ow s: “ Th e ir

do min atio n a

nd inh a bit atio n e xten de d f

ro m N or th- Ea st a nd South- Wes t Af ri c a , a c ro ss t

he g re at A tla

nti s e ve n unto the pr e se nt N or th, South a

nd Ce ntr a l A me ri c a

and a lso Me xico and

the At lanti s I sla

nd s; b e fo re the g re at e art

hq uake , whic h c a

us e d th e g re at A tla

nti c Oc ean . ” C o mp l
. , E x . 3 at5 8
. Be nn et t -B ey s t at es th at“[ a] s a w ak ef

u l b en ef i ci ary , S o v er ei gn pe op le , So ve re ig n immun ity and Sov e re ig n r ig hts Iam conf ident, my rig hts and interest a

re constitutionally

protec ted.” Compl. at 6-7. Be nnett-B ey

contends that he has bee n corr espondingwith the I RS for more than ten y e ars re g ard inghis tax status and that th e re are “ mis -u

nd e rs tand ing s” a

bo ut h is s tatus a s a Moorish America

n citizen. Compl. at 2. Be nnett-B ey states that his “exemption from Fe dera l Income Tax obligation [ sic] is not based on or f ound in the Fe dera l Tax C odes.” Id. at 3. On J anuar y 10, 2009, Be nnett-B ey

sent the I RS a letter appa rently respondingto a pre vious letter dated January

6, 2009. See C o mp l
. , E x . 1 0 (1 / 1 0 / 2 0 0 9 L et t er fr o mBe nn et t -B ey

t o T
. S i s un g, I RS S ettlement Off

icer). The le tter conta ins many asser tions reg ardingthe Express Trust and purports to include a

n offe r in compromise. In a letter dated Apr il 28, 2009, the I RS sent Be nnett-B ey

a “N otice of D eter

mination ConcerningCollection Action(s) Unde r Section 6320 and/or 6330.” See Compl., Ex . 9 (4/28/2009 Notice). T he notice of deter mination indicated that Be nnett-B ey ’s had tax liabilit ies stemming f rom self-f iled tax returns, a math er ror in 1999, lac k of wi thh old ing s, and

late fi lin gand

that a c ivi l pe na lty

wa s a sse sse d f

or a fr ivo lou s r e tur

n in 2004. See id. at 4. Th e no tic e state s th at a c oll e c tio n d

ue pr oc e ss h e ari ngwa s h e ld v ia
c or re sp on de nc e and

that B e nn e tt- B e y

did no t pr ov ide any

no n- fr ivo lou s r e sp on se s o r d isc us s3

way s to pay

the taxes owed. Id. at 5. The notice further indicates that a

Notice of Fe dera l Tax L ien Filing(NF TL ) wa s issued. Id. at 3, 6. The I RS i ndicated that it had determined that B e nn e tt- B e y

wa s n ot e nti tle d to re lie f f ro m th e NF TL

be c a us e he ha d p ro po se d n o a c c e pta ble collection alter

natives. Id. at 2. II. STA ND AR D O F RE VI EW Th e F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure re qu ir e that a c omp la int

c onta in “ ‘a

sh or t and pla in statement of the c laim showing that the pleade r is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘ g ive the defe ndant fa ir notice of what the . . . cla im is and the g rounds upon which it re sts.’” Be ll A tl. Cor p. v . Two mb ly , 5 5 0 U. S
. 5 4 4 , 5 5 5 (2 0 0 7 ) ( qu o t i n g Conley v. G ibson , 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); accord Eric kson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (pe r cur iam). Althoug h “deta iled fac tual alleg ations” ar e not nec essar y to withstand a Rule 12(b)( 6) motion to dism iss, to provide the

“ g ro un ds ” of

“ e nti tle [me nt] t o r e lie f, ” a pla int if f m us t f ur nis h “ mor e tha

n la be ls a nd c on c lus ion s” or “a formulaic r ecitation of the elements of a cause of ac tion.” Id . at 19 64 -6 5; see also Papasan
v . A lla in , 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). Instead, a complaint must contain sufficient f actua l matter,
acc epted a s true, to “state a cla im to relief that is plausible on its face .” Twom bly , 550 U.S. at 570. “A c laim has fac ial plausibilit y when the pla intiff pleads fa ctual conte nt that allows the court to dra

w the re asonable infere nce that the defe ndant is liable for the misconduct alleg ed.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , _

_ _ U. S
. _ _ _ , 1 2 9 S
. C t . 1 9 3 7 , 1 9 4 9 (2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g Twom bly , 550 U.S. at 556). In e va luatin ga

Rul e 12 (b )( 6) mot ion

to d ism iss fo r f

a ilure to s tate a

c la im, the c ourt

mus t
c on str ue the c omp la int

in a light m os t f

avo ra ble to t he pla int if

f a nd mus t a c c e pt a s tr

ue a ll
rea sonable fa ctual infe renc es dra wn from we ll-pleade d fac tual alleg ations. In re United M ine W orkers of Am. Em

ployeeBene

fit Plans L itig. , 8 54 F . Su pp . 9 14 , 9 15 (D .D .C. 19 94 ); se eals o Schuler v . United States , 6 17 F .2 d 6 05 , 6 08 (D .C. Cir . 1 97 9) (“ Th e c omp la int mus t be ‘l ibe ra llyTanya B ennett-B ey , who also ac ted pro s ein her c ase, listed the same home addr ess as 1 the plaintiff in this case. See Complaint, Benne tt-Bey v . Schulman , No. 08-328 (D .D.C. filed 4 construed in f

avor of the plaintiff,’ who must be g rante d the bene fit of all infer ence s that can be derive d from the f

acts a lleg ed.”) . Howeve r, as the Supre me Court rec ently made c lear , a plaintiff must provide more than just “a sheer possibili ty

that a def endant ha s acte d unlawfully .” Iqbal , 12 9 S. Ct. at 19 50 . Wh e re the we ll- ple a de d f a c ts s e t f or th i n th e c omp la int

do no t pe rm it a

c ourt , draw ing on its judicial experienc e and c ommon sense, to infer mor e than the “ mere possibili ty of misconduct,” the c omplaint has not shown that the pleade r is entitled to relief. Id. at 1950. On a motion to dismi ss under Rule 12(b) (1), the pla intiff bear s the burden of establishing that the cour

t has subject matter

jurisdiction. W

right v. Foreign Serv. Grievanc e Bd. , 5 03 F. Supp. 2d 163, 170 (D.D.C. 2007). “A lthough a court must acc ept as true all fac tual alleg ations contained in the c omplaint when re viewinga motion to dism iss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) , [a] p l ai n t i ff [ ’s ] fa ctu al al l ega t i o n s i nth e c o mp l ai n t. . . wi l l b ear c l o s er s cr u t i ny i nre s o l v i n g a 12(b)( 1) motion than in resolvinga 12(b) (6) motion for f ailure to state a

claim.” Id. (interna l citations and quotation marks omitted). Where, a s here , the ac tion is brought by a pro se plaintiff, the Court must take par ticular
car e to construe the plaintiff’s f ilings libera lly , for suc h complaints are held “to less string ent standards tha

n formal plea dings dr afte d by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerne r , 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). III . D ISC USS ION Be nnett-B ey ’s Complaint, which he filed pro s e , does not clea rly delineate the var ious claims upon which he seeks r elief. The Court notes that a nea rly identical complaint wa s filed by Tanya B ennett-B ey in another c ase in this district before J udg e Richar d W. R oberts. See 1Fe b. 26, 2008). 5

Com pla int , Benne tt-Bey v . Schulman , N o. 08 -3 28 (D .D .C. fi le d F e b. 26 , 2 00 8) . Jud g e Rob e rt s construed the alleg ations in that complaint as asser ting two c laims for re lief: (1) a ref und of taxes that had bee n withheld from the plaintiff’ s salary ; and (2) a relig ious ex emption from pay ing taxes under the F ree Ex erc ise clause
. See B ennett-Be y v. Sc hulman , N o . 0 8
- 3 2 8 , 2 0 1 0 WL 320216, at *1-2 (D .D.C. J an. 20, 2010). Plea dings f iled pro se must be liberally construed, Erickson v . Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), and this Court agree s that Be nnett-B ey appea rs to be
a lle g inga c la im f or a tax re fu nd and fo r a c on sti tut ion a l e xemp tio n f ro m taxati on . In a dd iti on , it appea rs that B ennett-B ey

seeks to appe al a de cision by the I RS i ssued under

§§ 6320 and 6330 of the Inte rn a l Re ve nu e Cod e . T he Court sh a ll a dd re ss e a c h o f t

he se c la ims be low . B e c a us e it i s clea r that B ennett-B ey

has sued De fenda

nt based on a ctions taken by the United States, the Court sh a ll gra nt D e fe nd ant’ s mo tio n to su bs tit ute the Un ite d St ate s a s th e pr op e r d e fe nd ant i n th is
case . See 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1). A. Reque

st for T ax Re fund B e nn e tt- B e y ’s fi rs t a

pp are nt r e qu e st f

or re lie f i s to “ [r]e qu ir e De fe nd ant t o r e tur n a ll Unlawf ully [si c] debts collected sinc e the e x ecution of the Ex press Tr ust without t he Plaintiff, F loyd B e nn e tt- B e y

havin gto s ub mitt [sic ] any fo rm s r e qu e sti ngthe re tur n o f u nla wf ull y
c oll e c te d d e bts .” Com

pl. at 8. Th is r e qu e st i s b e st c on str ue d a s a re qu e st f or a re fu nd of inc ome taxes withheld. See also Pl. ’s Op p’ n to Di smi ss C omp l., ¶ 4 (“ Th e de fe nd ant c la ims of my reque sting a

ref und and or suingfor a

ref und is taken out of conte x t beca use of the ope ration of law the I .R.S. had no right to re move funds fr om any of my acc ounts or chang e my

tax s tatus
e tc .” ) D e fe nd ant a

rgue s th at th is C ourt

la c ks jur isd ic tio n to e nte rt a in a ny tax re fu nd c la im6

beca use B ennett-B ey

has not pled any

fac ts that indicate he f

iled a re quest for a

ref und with the I RS. Pur su ant t o 2 8 U .S. C. § 13 46 , th e dis tr ic t c ourt s h ave or ig ina l juri sd ic tio n o f “ [a]ny c ivi l action ag ainst the United States for the rec overy of any internal-r evenue tax allege d to have be en
err oneously

or illeg ally

assessed or

collecte d.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) (1). How ever , § 7422(a) of the Interna l Revenue Code states that “[n] o suit or proce edingshall be maintained in a ny court for the r ecove ry

of any internal re venue tax alleg ed to have been e rrone ously or illeg ally

assessed or collec ted . . . until a claim for r efund or cre dit has been duly

filed with the [I RS] . . . .” See Un ite d S tates v . D alm , 494 U.S. 596, 601-02 (1990) ( “[U]nl ess a c laim for re fund of a tax has been f iled within the time lim its of [ 26 U.S.C.] § 6511(a) , a suit for re fund, re g ardle ss of whethe r the tax is alleg ed to have been ‘ err oneously ,’ ‘illeg ally ,’ or ‘ wrong fully collecte d,’ §§ 1346(a )(1) , 7422(a) , may

not be maintained in any court.” ) Her e, B ennett-B ey

has fa iled to plead any

fac ts that indicate he ha s filed an administrative re quest for a ref und with the I RS. Moreover, he fails, in either of his oppositi on briefs, to re but Defe ndant’s conte ntion that there is no prope r basis for subject matter jur isdiction based on B ennett-B ey ’s fa ilure to file an a dminist rative r efund r equest. The ref ore, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over B ennett-B ey ’s claim for a tax refund. B. Constit utional Exemption from Taxation Be nnett-B ey ’s sec ond prayer f or re lief is to “Respec t My tax ex empt status and Constitutional Rights as a Moor ish America n Citi zen, (Be nefic iary

).” Compl. at 8. B ennett-B ey claims that he is exempt from paying f eder al taxes beca

use he is a be nefic iary

of the Gr eat Moorish Estate Express Trust. See Compl. at 3. P laintiff asc ribes the or igin of the land in the trust to the Moorish Holy Kora n, excerpts of whic h are attache d to the Complaint as an exhibi t.7

See id. at 3- 4, Ex. 3 . A ff

or din gB e nn e tt- B e y ’s pro se Complaint a liberal construc tion, the Court must consider whe ther he is assertinga constitutional claim for a relig ious ex emption from taxation. Feder al cour

ts have jurisdiction over suc h claims under 28 U .S.C. § 1331, which is one of the ba ses for jur isdiction asserted by Be nnett-B ey

in his complaint. See Compl. at 1. Howeve r, the c omplaint, even libera lly construed, doe s not state a cla im that the fede ral g overnme nt has violated B ennett-B ey ’s fre e exerc ise of re ligion. To make out such a c laim, a plaintiff must show that the g overnme nt has “substantially burdene d” his exercise of relig ion. Se eHo ly Lan d F ou nd . fo r R e lie f &De v e l. v . A sh c ro

ft , 333 F.3d 156, 166 ( D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a)) . Be nnett-B ey ’s Complaint is entirely devoid of a lleg ations that fede ral taxes impose any burden, le t alone a substantial one , on his ex erc ise of re ligion. Acc ording ly , Def

endant’ s motion t o dismiss shall be g rante d with respec t to any claim of relig ious ex emption from taxation. C. Appeal from IRS De terminations Be nnett-B ey ’s fourth pr ayer f or re lief is to “Deny

the Def endants [sic] l etter of Deter mination dated April 28, 2009 Certified Ma il rece ipt number . . . .” Compl. at 8. This letter is attache d as Exhibi t 9 to the Compl aint and is titled “I RS Noti ce of Deter mination Concerning Collection Action(s) Unde r Section 6320 and/or 6330.” See Compl., Ex . 9. Interna l Revenue Code §§ 6320 and 6330 provide for taxpay ers to be notifie d of tax li ens and le vies imposed by the I RS. The Notice of D eter mination informed B ennett-B ey that he could f

ile an appe al of the I RS’s determination in the United States Tax Court withi n 30 day s. Compl., Ex . 9 at 1. The Notice f urther inf ormed Plaintiff that “[i] f an a ppeal is filed in the incor

rec t court (e .g ., United States District Court), you will not be able to re file in United States Tax Court if the time period for f iling a T ax C ourt petition has expired.” Id.8

I t appea rs that B ennett-B ey ’s Complaint is an attempt to appeal the I RS’s determination in this C ourt. Indeed, B ennett-B ey captioned his Complaint as “Complaint for Relief f rom the I .R.S. Noti ce of

Deter mination and L etter of

Collection Action(s) Unde r Section 6320, 6330 and any I .R.S. Action or Tax C odes.” See Compl. at 1. I nterna l Revenue Code § 6330( d)(1) provides that an a

ppeal may

be filed w ith the Tax C ourt; it does not provide for a n appea l to a district court. See I .R.C. § 6330(d)(1) ( “The person may , within 30 day s of a de termination under this sec tion, appeal suc h deter mination to the Tax Court (and the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction with respect to such matter).” ) “That Congre ss cre ated jurisdiction in the Tax Court for c erta in appea ls under § 6330(d) means that ther e is not a duplicate cause of ac tion in a United States District Court under the [Administrative Procedur e Ac t] .” Robinette v. Comm’r , 439 F.3d 45 5, 46 0 n .4 (8 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; see also Y uen v. U nited States , 290 F. Supp. 2d 1220, 1222 (D. Nev. 2003) (“[J ]udi cial re view of a Notice of Deter mination upholding the I RS’s collection
a c ti v it y f o r Pl a inti f f ’ s un d e r ly in gtax li a b il it ie s . . . li e s w it

hth e U n it e d

St ate s T a x Co urt, n o t t

h [e Di str ic t Co ur

t].” ) B e c a

us e the re is n o r e me dy

un de r t he APA , whic h is the de fa ult statut e providingfor r eview of

ag ency actions, see 5 U .S. C. § 70 4, the Court fi nd s th at it lacks jurisdiction to review the I RS’s Notice of De termination under § 6330( d). D. Other Possible Causes of Action B e nn e tt- B e y ’s thi rd

pr ay e r f or re lie f i s to “ Sto p th e De fe nd ant f ro m un lawf

ull y
c on du c tin gbu sin e ss o n th e Tr us t E state .” Com

pl. at 8. Ho we ve r, thi s r e qu e st f or re lie f c an o nly be construe d as duplicative of the claims alre ady

addre ssed by

the Court, and ther efor e the Court
n e e d n o tc o n s i d e r

i ts e p ar at e l y. Be nnett-B ey

asser ts that jurisdiction i n this action is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340, 1345, 1331, 1346, 1361, and 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402 and 7429. See Com pl. at 1. Of

the se pr ov isi on s, on ly9

26 U. S.C. § 7 42 9 s ug g e sts a pla us ibl e a lte rn ativ e c a

us e of a c tio n. Se c tio n 7 42 9 p ro vid e s th at a taxpay er ma

y bringa civil ac tion ag ainst the United States for a deter mination of whether

a levy made unde r § 6331(a ) less than 30 da y s after notice and de mand is rea sonable unde r the circ umstances. See 26 U. S.C. § 7 42 9. De fe nd ant d oe s n ot a dd re ss t his iss ue in h is m oti on

to dis mis s. Ho we ve r, B e nn e tt- B e y ha s n ot a lle g e d a

ny fa c ts p e rt a ini ngto s uc h a le vy in h is Complaint. Therefor e, it is clear that Be nnett-B ey

has fa iled to state a c laim for re lief under 26 U.S.C. § 7429. According ly , the Court shall g rant De fenda nt’s motion to di smiss t he Complaint i ni t s e n t i r e ty. IV . C ON CL USI ON F or the fo re g oin gre a so ns , th e Cou rt sh a ll G RA

NT De fe nd ant’ s [4] M oti on to D ism iss and dismiss thi s case in its entirety . An appr opriate or der sha ll accompa ny this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: Ma rch 3, 2010 / s / CO LLEEN K OLLA R- K OTEL LY Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge