3Jn tbe W:niteb ~tates <!Court of jf eberal <!Claims 

CYNTHIA LEE FARRIS, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

THE UNITED STATES, 

Defendant. 

No. 19-1028T 

Filed: March 10, 2020 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Pro Se; RCFC 12(b)(l); Subject-Matter 

Jurisdiction; Tax Refund Claim; 26 

U.S.C. § 6532; 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a); 26 

U.S.C. § 7421(a). 

_______________ ) 

Cynthia Lee Farris, Branson, MO, plaintiff prose. 

Margaret E. Sheer, Trial Attorney, Richard E. Zuckerman, Principal Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General, David l Pincus, Chief, G. Robson Stewart, Assistant Chief, United States 

Department of Justice, Tax Division, Court of Federal Claims Section, Washington, DC, for 

defendant. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

GRIGGSBY, Judge 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff, pro se, Cynthia Lee Farris, brought this action alleging that the government 

unlawfully collected her assets in connection with the assessment of certain federal income tax 

for tax years 2000-2017. See generally Comp. As relief, plaintiff seeks $56,551.31 in monetary 

damages from the government. Id. at 3. 

The government has moved to dismiss this matter for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(l) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"). 

Plaintiff has also filed a motion to proceed in this matter informa pauperis. See generally Pl. 

Mot. for IFP. For the reasons set forth below, the Court: (1) GRANTS the government's 

motion to dismiss; (2) GRANTS plaintiffs motion to proceed informapauperis; and (3) 

DISMISSES the complaint. 
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 

A. Factual Background 

This case is one of several tax refund matters before the Court alleging that the Internal 

Revenue Service ("IRS") lacks jurisdiction to collect federal income tax and asserting a claim for 

damages against the United States. Plaintiff, pro se, Cynthia Lee Farris, commenced this action 

on July 17, 2019. See generally Compl. 

In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that the government injured her by collecting her assets 

without jurisdiction and filing federal tax liens to recover her unpaid taxes. Id. at 1. As relief, 

plaintiff seeks to recover $56,551.31 in monetary damages and the release of certain federal tax 

liens. Id. at 3; Pl. Resp. at 2. 

To support her claim, plaintiff attaches to the complaint certain notices of federal tax 

liens for tax years 2006-2008 and 2011. Pl. Exs. 4-5. Plaintiff has not, however, provided proof 

that she pursued a tax refund claim with the IRS for any of the aforementioned tax years prior to 

commencing this action. See generally id. 1-8. (showing that plaintiff has not submitted proof of 

any tax refund claims). Plaintiff also does not dispute that she failed to satisfy her tax liability 

for the tax years 2000-2017. See Pl. Resp. (showing that plaintiff does not dispute that she did 

not fully pay her tax liability for tax years 2006-2008 and 2011). 

On June 20, 2018, plaintiff filed a petition in the United States Tax Court ("Tax Court") 

alleging that she had not received notices of deficiency or notices of determination for tax years 

2000-2017. See Comp 1. at 2; Pl. Ex. 2. The Tax Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction 

on October 10, 2018. Pl. Exs. 2, 7. 

Thereafter, plaintiff commenced this action. See generally Compl. 

B. Procedural Background 

On July 17, 2019, plaintiff commenced this action and filed a motion to proceed informa 

pauperis. See generally id.; Pl. Mot. for IFP. 

1 The facts recited in this Memorandum Opinion and Order are taken from the complaint ("Campi.") and 

the exhibits attached thereto ("Pl. Ex."); the government's motion to dismiss ("Def. Mot.") and the 

exhibits attached thereto ("Def. Ex."); and plaintiff's response and opposition to the government's motion 

to dismiss ("Pl. Resp."). Except where otherwise noted, the facts recited here are undisputed. 

2 
On September 16, 2019, the government filed a motion to dismiss this matter for lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(l). See generally Def. Mot. On November 

1, 2019, plaintiff filed a response and opposition to the government's motion to dismiss. See 

generally Pl. Resp. On November 15, 2019, the government filed a reply in support of its 

motion to dismiss. See generally Def. Reply. 

These matters having been fully briefed, the Court addresses the pending motion. 

III. LEGAL STANDARDS 

A. Pro Se Litigants 

Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter prose. The Court grants parties that are proceeding 

prose greater leeway than litigants represented by counsel. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 

520-21 (1972) (holding that prose complaints are held to "less stringent standards than formal 

pleadings drafted by lawyers"). But, this Court has recognized that "[w]hile a court should be 

receptive to prose plaintiffs and assist them, justice is ill-served when a jurist crosses the line 

from finder of fact to advocate." Demes v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 365, 369 (2002). And so, 

the Court may excuse ambiguities in plaintiffs complaint, but, the Court does not excuse the 

complaint's failures. See Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. Cir. 1995). 

In addition, this Court has long recognized that "the leniency afforded to a pro se litigant 

with respect to mere formalities does not relieve the burden to meet jurisdictional requirements." 

Minehan v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 249, 253 (2007). And so, the prose plaintiff-like any 

other plaintiff-must establish the Court's jurisdiction to consider a claim. Riles v. United 

States, 93 Fed. Cl. 163, 165 (2010). 

B. RCFC 12(b)(l) 

When deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, this Court must 

assume that all undisputed facts alleged in the complaint are true and must draw all reasonable 

inferences in the non-movant's favor. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); RCFC 

12(b)(l). Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction and she must do so 

by a preponderance of the evidence. Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 

748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). And so, should the Court determine that "it lacks jurisdiction over the 

3 
subject matter, it must dismiss the claim." Matthews v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 274, 278 

(2006). 

In this regard, the United States Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction 

and "possess[es] only that power authorized by Constitution and statute .... " Kokkonen v. 

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375,377 (1994). In particular, the Tucker Act grants the 

Court jurisdiction over: 

[A]ny claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, 

or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or 

upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for 

liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort. 

28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(l). The Tucker Act is, however, "a jurisdictional statute; it does not create 

any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages. [T]he Act 

merely confers jurisdiction upon [the United States Court of Federal Claims] whenever the 

substantive right exists." United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976). And so, to pursue a 

substantive right against the United States under the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify and 

plead a money-mandating constitutional provision, statute or regulation, or an express or implied 

contract with the United States. Cabral v. United States, 317 F. App'x 979, 981 (Fed. Cir. 

2008). 

C. Tax Refund Claims 

The Tucker Act authorizes this Court to adjudicate certain tax refund claims against the 

government. Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Ont. 

Power Generation v. United States, 369 F.3d 1298, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Shore v. United 

States, 9 F.3d 1524, 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Court's jurisdiction to entertain tax refund cases 

is, however, limited to those situations where the taxpayer has complied with the relevant 

provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 

U.S. 1, 4 (2008). 

In this regard, the applicable requirements in the Internal Revenue Code are set forth in 

26 U.S.C. § 7422(a), which provides that: 

No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of 

any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally 

assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected 

4 
without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any 

manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly 

filed with the Secretary, according to the provisions of law in that regard, 

and the regulations of the Secretary established in pursuance thereof. 

26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). And so, this Court does not possess subject-matter jurisdiction to consider 

a claim to recover internal revenue tax, unless the taxpayer first files a claim for a tax refund 

with the IRS. Strategic Haus. Fin. Corp. a/Travis Cty. v. United States, 608 F.3d 1317, 1324 

(Fed. Cir. 2010). 

In addition, title 26, United States Code, section 6532(a) requires that a taxpayer wait six 

months from the date on which the taxpayer filed a tax refund claim with the IRS before filing 

suit in this Court. 26 U.S.C. § 6532(a)(l). The only exception to this rule is that the taxpayer 

may immediately commence suit in this Court if the IRS rejects the taxpayer's tax refund claim. 

Id. And so, the Court must dismiss a tax refund claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if 

the complaint is filed less than six months after the taxpayer filed a tax refund claim with the 

IRS, unless the IRS has already rejected the claim. Dumont v. United States, 345 F. App'x 586, 

590 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 

A plaintiff must also abide by the "full payment rule," which requires that a taxpayer 

fully pay the federal income tax at issue prior to bringing a suit for a tax refund in this Court. 

Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63, 75 (1958); accord Shore, 9 F.3d at 1527 ("The Flora full 

payment rule requires that taxpayers prepay the tax principal before the Court of Federal Claims 

will have subject matter jurisdiction over their tax refund action .... "). And so, the Court does 

not possess jurisdiction to consider a tax refund claim if a tax deficiency exists. Shore, 9 F.3d at 

1526-27. 

Lastly, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held, that this Court 

is without jurisdiction to entertain a claim for damages flowing from the allegedly unlawful 

collection activities of the IRS. Ledford, 297 F.3d. at 1382. And so, such claims must be 

brought before a United States district court. Id.; see also Zolman v. United States, Nos. 17-

1901 T, 17-1902T, 2018 WL 1664690, at *2 (Fed. Cl. April 6, 2018) (holding that the Court does 

not possess subject-matter jurisdiction to consider damages claims resulting from unauthorized 

5 
collection actions, or failure to release a lien under either 26 U.S.C. §§ 7432(a) or 7433(a)).2 

This Court is similarly without jurisdiction to entertain claims challenging the imposition 

of tax liens. Zolman, 2018 WL 1664690 at *1-2. And so, such claims must also be brought 

before a United States district court by a third party, and not by the taxpayer. Id 

IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS 

The government has moved to dismiss this matter upon the ground that the Court does 

not possess subject-matter jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs claims, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(l). 

Def. Mot. at 6-9. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff has not met her burden to show that 

any of her claims fall within this Court's limited jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. Plaintiff has 

shown, however, that she may proceed in this matter without paying the Court's filing fee. And 

so, the Court: (1) GRANTS the government's motion to dismiss; (2) GRANTS plaintiffs 

motion to proceed informa pauperis; and (3) DISMISSES the complaint. 

A. The Court May Not Consider Any Of Plaintiff's Claims 

1. The Court May Not Consider 

Plaintiff's "Wrongful Collection" Claim 

As an initial matter, to the extent that plaintiff alleges a wrongful collection claim against 

the government, the Court must dismiss her claim. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that the 

2 Section 7432(a) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that: 

If any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service knowingly, or by reason 

of negligence, fails to release a lien under section 6325 on property of the taxpayer, 

such taxpayer may bring a civil action for damages against the United States in a 

district court of the United States. 

I.R.C. § 7432(a). Section 7433(a) of the Internal Revenue Code provides, in relevant part, that: 

If, in connection with any collection of Federal tax with respect to a taxpayer, any 

officer or employee of the [IRS] recklessly or intentionally, or by reason of 

negligence, disregards any provision of this title, or any regulation promulgated 

under this title, such taxpayer may bring a civil action for damages against the 

United States in a district court of the United States. Except as provided in section 

7432, such civil action shall be the exclusive remedy for recovering damages 

resulting from such actions. 

I.R.C. § 7433(a). 

6 
government collected her assets without jurisdiction and "took wrongful action" in filing certain 

federal tax liens. Comp!. at 1. But, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

has held that this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain a claim for damages flowing from the 

allegedly unlawful collection activities of the IRS, and that such claims must be brought before a 

United States district court. Ledfordv. United States, 297 F.3d. 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see 

also Zolman v. United States, Nos. 17-1901 T, 17-1902T, 2018 WL 1664690, at *2 (Fed. Cl. 

April 6, 2018) (holding that the Court does not possess subject-matter jurisdiction to consider 

damages claims resulting from unauthorized collection actions, or failure to release a lien under 

either 26 U.S.C. §§ 7432(a) or 7433(a)). 

The Court is similarly without jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff's claim challenging the 

IRS's imposition of tax liens, because such claims must also be brought before a United States 

district court by a third party. Zolman, 2018 WL 1664690, at * 1-2. And so, the Court must 

dismiss plaintiff's wrongful collection claims for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.3 

2. The Court May Not Consider 

Plaintiff's Tax Refund Claim 

To the extent that plaintiffs claim can be construed as a tax refund claim, the Court must 

also dismiss this claim because plaintiff has not satisfied the jurisdictional requirements to bring 

such a claim in this Court. As the government correctly observes in its motion to dismiss, 

plaintiff must have: (1) timely filed a refund claim and (2) fully paid her tax liability before 

commencing this action, to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Def. Mot. at 6; 26 U.S.C. § 

7422(a); Shore v. United States, 9 F.3d 1524, 1526-27 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 

Plaintiff has not shown that she can satisfy either of these jurisdictional requirements. 

First, plaintiff has not provided proof that she timely filed a tax refund claim for any of the tax 

3 It is also well-established that the Tucker Act explicitly places tort claims beyond the jurisdiction of this 

Court. 28 U.S.C. § 149l(a)(l) ("The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to 

render judgment upon any claim against the United States ... in cases not sounding in tort."); see also 

Hernandez v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 195,204 (2010) ("[T]he Tucker Act expressly excludes tort 

claims, including those committed by federal officials, from the jurisdiction of the United States Court of 

Federal Claims."). And so, to the extent that plaintiff asserts a tort claim against the government, the 

Court must dismiss this claim. 

7 
years at issue in this case. See Pl. Exs. 1-8 (showing that plaintiff did not provide proof of a tax 

refund claim for any of the tax years at issue). Plaintiff also does not dispute that she did not 

fully pay her tax liability for tax years 2006-2008 and 2011 . See generally Pl. Resp. (showing 

that plaintiff does not dispute that she did not fully pay her tax liability for tax years 2006-2008 

and 2011); see also Def. Ex. A at 32-49, 56-59. Given this, the Court must dismiss plaintiffs tax 

refund claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. RCFC 12(b )(1 ). 

B. Plaintiff May Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

As a final matter, plaintiff has persuasively moved to proceed in this matter without 

paying the Court's filing fee. See generally Pl. Mot. for IFP. In her application to proceed in 

forma pauperis, plaintiff states that she is not employed and that she is unable to pay the Court's 

filing fee. Id This Court may authorize commencement of a suit without prepayment of fees 

when a person submits an affidavit including a statement of all assets, a declaration that he or she 

is unable to pay the fees, and a statement of the nature of the action and a belief that he or she is 

entitled to redress. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2503(d). Due to the Court's 

summary disposition of this case, and plaintiffs pro se status, the Court finds that plaintiff 

satisfies the requirements to proceed in forma pauperis for the purpose of resolving the 

jurisdictional issues raised in the complaint. And so, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis for this purpose. 

V. CONCLUSION 

In sum, the most generous reading of the complaint makes clear that the Court does not 

possess subject-matter jurisdiction to consider any of plaintiffs claims. Plaintiff has, however, 

satisfied the statutory requirements to proceed in this matter without paying the Court's filing 

fee. 

And so, for the foregoing reasons, the Court: 

1. GRANTS the government's motion to dismiss; 

2. GRANTS plaintiffs motion to proceed informa pauperis; and 

3. DISMISSES the complaint. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. 

8 
Each party shall bear its own costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

9