N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ LAMAR ELLIS, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2020

- 1015

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:18

- cv

- 01579

- MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank Horn.

______________________
Decided: March 6, 2020

______________________

L AMAR E LLIS , Brea, CA, pro se.

M ARION E.M. E RICKSON , Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by D EBORAH K. S NYDER , R ICHARD E. Z UCKERMAN

.

______________________
Before P ROST , Chief Judge

, L INN and T ARANTO , Circuit Judges. Case: 20-1015 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 03/06/2020ELLIS v. UNITED STATES 2

P ER C URIAM

. Lamar Ellis filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims

, alleging that the United States owes him a refund of taxes for the 1998 tax year . The Court of Federal Claims held that it lac ked subject

- matter jurisdiction over Mr. Ellis’s claims and dismissed the complaint. We affirm.

I
In May 2017, Mr. Ellis filed a tax refund claim with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for the 1998 tax year. The IRS denied the claim , giving two reasons: the claim was filed “more than three years after the due date of the tax return” ; and the claim was based on a “ frivolous position.” S.A. 23.

In October 2018, Mr. Ellis filed this action against the United States. As modified the next month, the complaint requests an award of $9 7
, 753
, 836 to recover an asserted overpayment for the 1998 tax year, among other things

. 1 Mr. Ellis a ttached amended tax return form s for the 1998 tax year
, a 2013 application for a tentative refund

, and letters from the IRS denying his May 2017 refund claim.

The government moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court of Federal Claims grante d th e motion. Ellis v. United States , 144 Fed. Cl. 548 , 556 (2019)

. The court held that the complaint is

1 Mr. Ellis was initially joined by two related entities

as co

- plaintiffs, who together sought a refund of $969,840,266 for the 1998 tax year . S.A. 1 2

– 14. The Court of Federal Claims permitted Mr. Ellis to file a supplement to the complaint, removing the two entities as parties and limiting the refund request to $ 97,753,836

. S.A. 47

– 49. Since that filing, the parties and the court have treated the two entities as no longer part of the case. Case: 20-1015 Document: 41 Page: 2 Filed: 03/06/2020ELLIS v. UNITED STATES 3

outside its jurisdiction over tax refund claims because Mr. Ellis had not fulfilled the prerequisites to maintain such a claim. Id. at 553

– 56. The court entered final judgment on August 2 2 , 2019. Mr. Ellis timely filed a notice of appeal. S.A. 127; 28 U.S.C. §§ 2107, 2522. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

II

We review de novo the trial court’s dismissal for lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. See Alpine PCS, Inc. v. United States , 878 F.3d 1086, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Mudge v. United States

, 308 F.3d 1220, 1224 (Fed. Cir. 200 2 ). In reviewing the dismissal here , we accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 93

– 94 (2007). Although we generally interpret the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff liberally, Durr v. Nicholson , 400 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Hughes v. Rowe , 449 U.S. 5, 9

– 10 (1980)), pro se status cannot excuse a failure to demonstrate that jurisdictional requirements are met, Henke v. United States , 60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The party se eking relief from thecourt bears the burden of establishing the court’s jurisdiction. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind.

, 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936).

A
A taxpayer seeking a refund of taxes erroneously or illegally assessed or collected may b ring an action against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). But there are two prerequisites to the court’s jurisdiction over such a claim

. F irst

, the taxpayer must have already paid the disputed taxes in full

. See F

lora v. United States , 357 U.S. 63, 75

– 76 (1958) ; see also Shore v. United States , 9 F.3d 1524, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1 993) (applying Flora ’s “full payment rule ” to tax refund suits brought in the Court of Federal Claims)

. S econd , the Case: 20-1015 Document: 41 Page: 3 Filed: 03/06/2020ELLIS v. UNITED STATES 4

taxpayer must have timely sought a refund from the IRS before suing in the Court of Federal Claims

, 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a) ; specifically, he had to file a refund claim with the IRS within three years of the date the return was filed or two years of the date the tax was paid, whichever period expires later

, 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a)

. Considering the complaint, the specific

- information requirement of Rule 9(m) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims, and what Mr. Ellis argued in the trial court, we conclude , in agreement with the Court of Federal Claims, that Mr. Ellis has not met either prerequisite

. Mr. Ellis has not provided any plausible allegation that he paid the tax liability i n full. And t he refund claim he made to the IRS in May 2017 was far out of time. Therefore, the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction to hear Mr. Ellis’s complaint as a claim for a tax refund

. B
In his informal brief, Mr. Ellis argues that the trial
court erred in not using the “[26 U.S.C.] Section 1045 application for a tentative refund” and in not request ing information from his past bankruptcy when considering the motion to dismiss. Appellant’ s Br. at 1. But Mr. Ellis has not shown how either action would have cured the jurisdictional deficiencies

. Finally, Mr. Ellis has filed a document, ECF No. 36

, that we construe as a request for leave to file a motion to close the case while granting favorable monetary compensation to Mr. Ellis . We deny th e request as moot.

III

Because Mr. Ellis has not shown that he has a claim within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Cl aims, we affirm the judgment dismissing the case.

AFFIRMED Case: 20-1015 Document: 41 Page: 4 Filed: 03/06/2020