# 3Jn tbe W:niteb ~tates <!Court ofjf 

# eberal <!Claims

CYNTHIA LEE FARRIS, Plaintiff,
V. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. No. 19-1028T Filed: March 10, 2020 NOT FORPUBLICATION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### 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, 

### Davidl Pincus, Chief, G. 

### Robson Stewart, Assistant Chief, United States Department ofJustice, Tax Division, Court ofFederal 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 ofcertain federal income tax for tax years 2000-2017. 

### See generally Comp. As relief, plaintiffseeks $56,551.31 in monetary damages from the government. Id. at 3. The government has moved to dismiss this matter for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(l) ofthe Rules ofthe United States Court ofFederal Claims ("RCFC"). Plaintiffhas also filed a motion to proceed in this matter 

### informapauperis. 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 BACKGROUND 1 A. Factual Background 

### This case is one ofseveral tax refund matters before the Court alleging that the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") lacksjurisdictionto 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, plaintiffalleges that the government injured her by collecting her assets withoutjurisdiction and filing federal tax liens to recover her unpaid taxes. 

### Id. at 1. As relief, plaintiffseeks to recover $56,551.31 in monetary damages and the release ofcertain federal tax liens. 

### Id. at 3; Pl. Resp. at 2. To support her claim, plaintiffattaches to the complaint certain notices offederal tax liens for tax years 2006-2008 and 2011. Pl. Exs. 4-5. Plaintiffhas not, however, provided proof that she pursued a tax refund claim with the IRS for any ofthe aforementioned tax years prior to commencing this action. 

### See generally id. 1-8. (showing that plaintiffhas not submitted proofof any tax refund claims). Plaintiffalso does not dispute that she failed to satisfy her tax liability for the tax years 2000-2017. 

### See Pl. Resp. (showing that plaintiffdoes not dispute that she did not fully pay her tax liability for tax years 2006-2008 and 2011). On June 20, 2018, plaintifffiled a petition in the United States Tax Court ("Tax Court") alleging that she had not received notices ofdeficiency ornotices ofdetermination 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, plaintiffcommenced this action. 

### See generally Compl. B. Procedural Background 

### On July 17, 2019, plaintiffcommenced this action and filed a motion to proceed 

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

1The 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-matterjurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(l). 

### See generally Def. Mot. On November 1, 2019, plaintifffiled 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 ofits 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 

### Plaintiffis 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 ajurist crosses the line from finder offact to advocate." 

### Demes v. UnitedStates, 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. UnitedStates, 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 meetjurisdictional requirements." 

### Minehan v. UnitedStates, 75 Fed. Cl. 249, 253 (2007). And so, the

### prose plaintiff-like any other plaintiff-must establish the Court'sjurisdictionto 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 ofsubject-matterjurisdiction, 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). Plaintiffbears the burden ofestablishing subject-matterjurisdiction and she must do so by a preponderance ofthe evidence. 

### Reynolds v.Army &

### Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). And so, should the Court determine that "it lacksjurisdiction over the

3subject matter, it must dismiss the claim." 

### Matthews v. UnitedStates, 72 Fed. Cl. 274, 278 (2006).In this regard, the United States Court ofFederal Claims is a court oflimitedjurisdiction 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 Courtjurisdiction over: [A]ny claim againstthe United States founded eitheruponthe 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, "ajurisdictional statute; it does not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages
. [T]he Act merely confersjurisdiction upon [the United States Court ofFederal Claims] whenever the substantive right exists." 

### UnitedStates v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976). And so, to pursue a substantive right against the United States under the Tucker Act, a plaintiffmust identify and plead a money-mandating constitutional provision, statute or regulation, or an express or implied contract with the United States. 

### Cabral v. UnitedStates, 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. 

### Ledfordv. UnitedStates, 297 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002); 

### see also Ont. Power Generation v. UnitedStates, 369 F
.3d 1298, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 

### Shore v. United States, 9 F.3d 1524, 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Court'sjurisdictionto entertain tax refund cases is, however, limited to those situations where the taxpayer has complied with the relevant provisions ofthe Internal Revenue Code. 

### United States v. ClintwoodElkhorn 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 ofany sum alleged to have been excessive or in any mannerwrongfully collected, until aclaim for refund orcredithas been duly filed with the Secretary, according to the provisions oflaw in that regard, and the regulations ofthe Secretary established in pursuance thereof. 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). And so, this Court does not possess subject-matterjurisdictionto 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. UnitedStates, 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 ifthe IRS rejects the taxpayer's tax refund claim. 

### Id. And so, the Court must dismiss a tax refund claim for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdiction 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. 

### Dumontv. UnitedStates, 345 F. App'x 586, 590 (Fed. Cir. 2009). A plaintiffmust 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. UnitedStates, 357 U.S. 63, 75 (1958); 

### accordShore, 9 F.3d at 1527 ("The Flora full payment rule requires that taxpayers prepay the tax principal before the Court ofFederal Claims will have subject matterjurisdiction over their tax refund action
...."). And so, the Court does not possessjurisdictionto consider a tax refund claim ifa tax deficiency exists. 

### Shore, 9 F.3d at 1526-27. Lastly, the United States Court ofAppeals for the Federal Circuit has held, that this Court is withoutjurisdictionto entertain a claim for damages flowing from the allegedly unlawful collection activities ofthe 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. UnitedStates, Nos. 17- 1901T, 17-1902T, 2018 WL 1664690, at *2 (Fed. Cl. April 6, 2018) (holding that the Court does notpossess subject-matterjurisdiction to consider damages claims resulting from unauthorized

5collection actions, or failure to release a lien under either 26 U.S.C. §§ 7432(a) or 7433(a)). 2 This Court is similarly withoutjurisdictionto entertain claims challenging the imposition oftax 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 matterupon the ground that the Court does not possess subject-matterjurisdictionto consider plaintiffs claims, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(l). Def. Mot. at 6-9. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiffhas not met her burden to showthat any ofher claims fall within this Court's limitedjurisdiction under the Tucker Act. Plaintiffhas 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 

### informapauperis; and (3) DISMISSES the complaint. A. The Court May Not Consider Any OfPlaintiff's Claims 1. The Court May Not Consider Plaintiff's "Wrongful Collection" Claim As an initial matter, to the extent that plaintiffalleges a wrongful collection claim against the government, the Court must dismiss her claim. In the complaint, plaintiffalleges that the

2 Section 7432(a) ofthe Internal Revenue Code provides that: Ifany officeroremployee ofthe Internal Revenue Serviceknowingly, orby reason ofnegligence, fails to release a lien under section 6325 on property ofthetaxpayer, such taxpayer may bring a civil action for damages against the United States in a district court ofthe United States. I.R.C. § 7432(a). Section 7433(a) ofthe Internal Revenue Code provides, in relevant part, that: If, in connection with any collection ofFederal tax with respect to a taxpayer, any officer or employee of the [IRS] recklessly or intentionally, or by reason of negligence, disregards any provision ofthis 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 ofthe 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).

6government collected her assets withoutjurisdiction and "took wrongful action" in filing certain federal tax liens. Comp!. at 1. But, the United States Court ofAppeals for the Federal Circuit has held that this Court is withoutjurisdictionto entertain a claim for damages flowing from the allegedly unlawful collection activities ofthe IRS, and that such claims must be brought before a United States district court. 

### Ledfordv. UnitedStates, 297 F.3d. 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002); 

### see also Zolman v. UnitedStates, Nos. 17-1901T, 17-1902T, 2018 WL 1664690, at *2 (Fed. Cl. April 6, 2018) (holding that the Court does notpossess subject-matterjurisdictionto 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 withoutjurisdictionto entertain plaintiff's claim challenging the IRS's imposition oftax 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 ofsubject-matterjurisdiction.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 plaintiffhas not satisfied thejurisdictional requirements to bring such a claim in this Court. As the government correctly observes in its motion to dismiss, plaintiffmust have: (1) timely filed a refund claim and (2) fully paid her tax liability before commencing this action, to invoke thejurisdiction ofthis Court. Def. Mot. at 6; 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a); 

### Shore v. UnitedStates, 9 F.3d 1524, 1526-27 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Plaintiffhas not shown that she can satisfy either ofthesejurisdictional requirements. First, plaintiffhas not provided proofthat she timely filed a tax refund claim for any ofthe tax

3 It is also well-established that the Tucker Act explicitly places tort claims beyond thejurisdiction ofthis Court. 28 U.S.C. § 149l(a)(l) ("The United States Court ofFederal Claims shall havejurisdiction to renderjudgment upon any claim against the United States
... in cases not sounding in tort."); see also Hernandez v. UnitedStates, 96 Fed. Cl. 195,204 (2010) ("[T]he Tucker Act expressly excludes tort claims, including those committed by federal officials, from thejurisdiction ofthe United States Court of Federal Claims."). And so, to the extentthat plaintiffasserts a tort claim against the government, the Court must dismiss this claim.

7years at issue in this case. 

### See Pl. Exs. 1-8 (showing that plaintiffdid not provide proofofa tax refund claim for any ofthe tax years at issue). Plaintiffalso does not dispute that she did not fully payher tax liability for tax years 2006-2008 and 2011
. 

### See generally Pl. Resp. (showing that plaintiffdoes not dispute that she did not fully pay hertax 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 ofsubject-matterjurisdiction. RCFC 12(b)(1). 

### B. PlaintiffMay ProceedIn Forma Pauperis As a final matter, plaintiffhas 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 formapauperis, plaintiffstates that she is not employed and that she is unable to pay the Court's filing fee. 

### Id This Court may authorize commencement ofa suit without prepayment offees when a person submits an affidavit including a statement ofall assets, a declaration that he or she is unable to pay the fees, and a statement ofthe nature ofthe action and a beliefthat 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 ofthis case, and plaintiffs

### pro se status, the Court finds that plaintiff satisfies the requirements to proceed 

### informapauperis for the purpose ofresolving the jurisdictional issues raised in the complaint. And so, the Court 

### GRANTS plaintiffs motion to proceed 

### informapauperis for this purpose. 

### V. CONCLUSION In sum, the most generous reading ofthe complaint makes clear that the Court does not possess subject-matterjurisdiction to consider any ofplaintiffs claims. Plaintiffhas, 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 motionto dismiss; 2
. 

### GRANTS plaintiffs motion to proceed 

### informapauperis; and 3
. 

### DISMISSES the complaint. The Clerk shall enterjudgment accordingly.

8

### Each party shall bear its own costs. IT IS SO ORDERED.

9