## :*.\ '\.i

.. ). 

### l!

## : 3

## li E 

## -! l.r, l, r iiil ,. , 

### '"

. l; 

### .,,- ."1 ;l ; ,,',i ir.;".1 

## lJn

# tltt 

# @nitr! 

# btsttgtourt of

# fr[trul @lufms

No. l6-206C (Filed: August 

### 1,2016) 

# FILED

AUG

## - 

## I 20t6 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 

### GINA BRASHER 

### LANGLEY,

Plaintiff,

THE TINITED STATES, Pro Se 

### Complaint; Dismissal 

### for Lack 

### of Subject 

### MatterJurisdiction; Tax Refund 

### Claim; Takings 

### Claim; Suit precluded by previous actions in Tax Court; 

### I.R.C. $6512(a).
Defendant.

Gina 

### B. Langley, Neptune Beach, 

### FL, pro se. 

### Brian J. 

### Sullivan, Attorney of Record,Tax 

### Division, United States Department 

### of Justice, 

### with whom were Caroline 

### D. Ciraolo,

### Acting Assistant 

### Attorney General, and 

### David I. Pincus, 

### for defendant. G. Robson Stewart, 

### United States Department of Justice, Washington, 

### D.C., of counsel. 

### OPINION 

### AND ORDER 

### CAMPBELL-SMITH, Chief Judge 

### Plaintiff Gina Brasher 

### Langley (Ms. Langley or

### plaintiff) filed acomplaint on 

### February 10, 2016 on her own behalf against the 

### United States (government or 

### defendant). Compl., ECF 

### No.

# l Ms. Langley seeks

### just compensation 

### from the 

### Intemal Revenue Service 

### (lRS) for the

### taking

### ofher real 

### property. She also seeks atax refund 

### of $51,068.84, plus interest 

### for tax years 

### 2004,2009,2011,2012, and

### 2013. Id. 

### at 1; Compl. 

### App.

### A, 15-23. Defendant 

### filed a 

### motion to dismiss the 

### complaint on 

### May 10,2016. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss 

### (Def.'s Mot.), ECF 

### No. 

### 9. Defendant assertsthat the court lacks

### jurisdiction to hear 

### Ms. 

### Lanslev's claims.

uspsrRAcKrNG. 911/t 9014 9645 0594 5521 46 acusrotltER t-or rr.ckino or |nou|ricr oo to lrsps cofi o.ell 1-800'222.1811

# L Background

Before 

### bringing an action in this court, Ms. 

### Langley filed 

### two actions before the 

### United States 

### Tax Court 

### (Tax

### Court). Langley v. Commissioner 

### (Langley), 

### No. 17267- 

### 13,2015WL392980,at*1(T.C.Jan. 13,2015)(Mem.Op.). 

### Shefiledherfirstactionin response to the 

### IRS's notice 

### of collection action 

### for unpaid income taxes

### for the years 2006 and

### 2008-2010. Id.
She

### filed her second action seeking 

### reliefas an innocent spouse under 

### I.R.C. $ 

### 6015(f). In 

### particular, Ms. Langley sought to avoid tax 

### liability for the years 

### during which shefiled

### joint returns

### with her 

### now ex-spouse. In November 2014,the

### Tax Court dismissed the second action 

### "for lack

## of jurisdiction because there was no 

### deficiencyfor 2004 and because 

### petitioner had not 

### filed 

### joint retums 

### for the later 

### years." Id.; Order 

### of Dismissal 3 (T.C. 

### Nov. 12,

### 2014). Two months later, in January 2015,the

### Tax Court dismissed, as moot, 

### Ms. Langley's remaining 

### claimsfor tax years 2008 and 

### 2010. But, the 

### Tax Court sustained the proposed 

### levy against 

### plaintiff to collect the taxes owed for the years 2006 and

### 2009. Langley, 2015

### WL 392980, at 

### *3-5.
Ms. Langley appealed theTax 

### Court's decision to the 

### United States Court 

### of Appeals 

### for the Eleventh 

### Circuit. Langlev 

### v. I.R.S., 

### No. 15-10791, 612 Fed.

### Appx. 585 

### (l lth Cir. 

### Aug. 12, 2015) (per

### curium). After losing her appeal, 

### Ms. Langley filed, on October 29 and November 7

### ,2015, multiple claims 

### with the IRS

## - each as a 

### "Claim for Refund and Request 

### for Abatement" (Form 843) for tax years 2009 and2011-2013. 

### Compl.App. 

### A,20-23. By letter dated 

### November 25,2015, Ms. Jacquelyne Yarbrough, an IRS Accounts Management Services Manager 

### informed Ms. Langley that the IRS 

### "[could not] abate a refund that was applied to othertax years' unpaid tax

### obligations." Id. at 18-19. Thus, 

### Ms. Yarbrough declined to take any 

### further action on 

### Ms. Langley's request. Id. 

### Ms. Langley then

### filed a

### petition for

### writ of certiorari

### with the 

### United States Supreme 

### Court. Id. at

### 4-12. In her 

### petition, she enoneously attributed the Eleventh 

### Circuit's opinion denying her appeal tothe Supreme 

### Court. 

## Id, The Supreme Court denied her 

### petition five months later, in January 

### 2016. Id. at I

. On 

### February 10,2016, 

### Ms. Langley filed a

### complaint in this court, asking the court to do the

### followins:3. 

### l. Order the IRS to 

### refund $5 1,068.84 

### in federal taxes, plus interest

### for tax years 2004,2009, and 20 1| -20 13 ; Order the removal 

### of her ex-spouse's name 

### from the

### title of her home as

### well as the removal of the 

### lien held by her ex-spouse's legal counsel: and 

### Void the State 

### of Florida'sjudgment 

### of lien and direct an award 

## of $1,200,000.00 

### for the

### taking 

### ofher home by her ex-spouse's legal counsel, 

### who serves as an elected state 

### official 

### "in charge

## of homeland security funds between 

### two government baseswhere 

### my son and many others servethis 

### country and pay taxes on the income they earn 

### in accordance 

### with the fraud enforcement recovery act

## of 2009."

See 

### Compl. 9-10. 

### Ms. Langley brings herethe same legal issues she pressed before theTax Court. 

### As summarized by that court, 

### Ms. Langley asserts that "she is entitled to refunds 

### from the IRS going back 

### approximately 10years because 

### ofa refund on a

### joint return 

### for 2004 and other 

### property converted by her 

### former spouse and/or those acting

### with 

### him." Lanqlev, 2015 

### WL 392980, at

### *4; see

### Compl.

### fllfl-41. Plaintiff claims that the Tax Court found, 

### in the second case before 

### it, that the casualty loss claimed 

### in 2010was

### valid; thus, she 

### now contends that she is entitled to

### atax refund 

### of $1445.97

### fortaxyear20l2. Compl. 

### App. 

### A, 22; see also 

### Langley, 2015

### WL 392980. She also claims that the IRS owes her a 

### refund of $32 10.27

### for overpayments in tax year 

### 2013. Compl.App.

### A, 23. 

### Ms. Langley's tax refund claims are 

### only one aspect of her 

### case. She also brings a takings 

### claim based on the conduct of 

### Ms. Suzzanne Green, the attorney

### who represented 

### Ms. Langley's husband during the couple's 

### divorce. Compl. 

### Jl!f5-19,21,24,26,28-31, 33. On 

### May 10,2016, Ms. Langley

### filed an amended complaint, repeating her 

### initial claims and adding an extensive discussion

### ofher earlier actions before the Tax 

### Cou( and the Supreme 

### Court. Am. Compl.

### 2-13. In addition, 

### Ms. Langley

### filed a 

### motion 

### for sanctions. 

## I P[.'s 

### Mot.for Sanctions, ECF 

### No. 7. That same day, defendant

### filed a motion to 

### dismiss. Def.'s Mot., ECF 

### No. 9. Defendant argues that the court lacks 

### jurisdiction to hear: 

### (1)

### plaintiff sproperty-related



# ' Ms. Langley's 

### Motion for Sanctions was denied, 

### by separate order, on

### August 

## l, 20t6. 2.claims against her ex-husband; 

### (2)

### plaintiff sclaims against 

### Ms. Green; and (3) 

### plaintiff s

tax refund claims 

### mirroring those she

### filed earlier in the 

### Tax

### Court. Id. at4-8. Ms. 

### Langley responded, objecting to 

### all of defendant's arguments. 

### Pl.'s Resp., ECF 

### No. 13. She supplemented her response 

### with additional

### filings to address the purported "casualty loss" and to 

### provide the 

### "correct" taxforms that defendant claimed she had not 

### completed. Id. at

### App. 

### D, 26-31. Defendant 

### filed an amended 

### motion to dismiss, again asserting that the court lacks 

### jurisdiction to hear 

### Ms. Langley's 

### claims. Def.'s Am. 

### Mot., ECF 

### No. 15. Ms. Langley responded, 

### offering no new 

### information and attaching copies 

### ofprevious 

### filings. Pl.'s Resp.to 

### Def.'s Am. 

### Mot., ECF 

### No. 16. Defendant replied, 

### maintaining its position that the court is

### without

### jurisdiction to decide 

### Ms. Langley's 

### claims. Def.'s Reply to 

### Pl.'s Resp.to 

### Def.'s Am. Mot. to 

### Dismiss 1-3, ECF 

### No. 17. The matter is 

### now ripe

### for a 

### ruling. 

# II. Legal Standards
The Tucker 

### Act provides that this court has

### jurisdiction over 

### "any claim against the 

### United States founded either uponthe 

### Constitution, or any

### Act ofCongress or any 

### regulalion 

### ofan executive department, or upon any express or 

### implicd contract

### with the 

### United States, 

### orfor liquidated or unliquidated damages 

### in cases 

### not sounding in

### tort." 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1a9l(a)(1) (2012) (emphasis 

### added).

### A plaintiff must 

### "identifu a subsrantive 

### right for money damages against the 

### United States separate 

### from the Tucker 

### Act itself ' 

### for the court to exercise 

### jurisdiction over a

### claim. Todd v. 

### United States, 386 

### F.3d 1091, 1094 (Fed. 

### Cir. 

### 2004). The substantive source 

### of law allegedly 

### violated musr 

### "fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal 

### Government." United Statesv. Navajo 

### Nation, 556 U.S. 287

### ,290 (2009) (quoting 

### United States

### v. Testan
,424 U.S. 

### 392, 400 (1e76)). Complaints 

### filed by p1q_qe 

### plaintiffs are held to "less stringent standardsthan 

### formal pleadings drafted 

### by 

### lawyers." Haines v. 

### Kemer, 404 

### U.S. 519,520 (1972); see 

### Vaizburd v. 

### United States, 384 

### F.3d 1278, 1285 n.8 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2004) (stating that pleadings drafted by

### g95g parties 

### "should

. . . not be held to the same standard as [pleadings drafted 

### by] parties represented 

### by 

### counsel"). Nonetheless, the fact that a 

### plaintiff "acted 

### p1Aje in the 

### drafting of his 

### complaint may 

### explain its ambiguities, but 

### it does not excuse 

### its

### failures." Henke

### v. United States, 60 

### F.3d 795,799 (Fed.

### Cir. 1995). Pro se 

### plaintiffs must 

### still meet

### jurisdictional requirements. 

### Kelley v. 

### Dep't of Labor, 812 

### F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1987) 

### C'[A] court may not 

### similarly take a liberal 

### view 

## of [a]

### jurisdictional requirement and set a

### different rulefor pro se 

### litigants 

### only."). Subject matter

### jurisdiction may be addressed at any

### time either by the parties, by the court sua sponte, 

### or on 

### appeal. Booth v. 

### United States 

### ,990 F.2d 6l'7 , 620 (Fed. 

### Cir.1993) 

### (internal citations 

### omitted). Once

### jurisdiction is questioned 

### by the court or the

opposing party, the 

### plaintiff"bears the burden 

### of establishing 

### jurisdiction." J.

### Mclntyre Mach.. 

### Ltd. v. 

### Nicastro, 131 S.

### Ct.2780,2792 

### (201l). A plaintiff must establish 

### jurisdiction by a "preponderance

### ofthe evidence." Reynolds v.

### Army 

### &

### Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 

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

### Cir. 1988) 

### (internal citations 

### omitted). 

### If the court determines that 

### it does not have subject matter

### jurisdiction, it must dismiss the claim. 

### RCFC 

### l2(hX3). 

# III. Discussion The court considers, in 

### tum, whether 

### it has

### jurisdiction to hear

### plaintiff stakings 

### claim, 

### plaintiff s

### property lien 

### claim, and

### plaintiff stax refund claims. 

# A. The Court Does 

### Not HaveJurisdiction Over 

### Plaintiff sTakings 

### Claim Consistent

### with its statutory authority, the Court 

### of Federal Claims may exercise 

### 'Jurisdiction over takings claims brought Iunder the 

### Fifth Amendment] against the 

### United States." Casitas 

### Mun. Water 

### Dist. v. United States, 708 

### F.3d 1340, 1359 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2013) 

### (internal citations 

### omitted). But, the mere characterization 

### of a

### plaintiff sclaim as a 

### taking does not make 

### it so. Pines Residential Treatment Ctr.. 

### Inc.v. United States,444 

### F.3d 1379, 1380 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2006) 

### (citing Katzv. Cisneros, 

### l6 F.3d 1204, 1207 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1994)). Moreover, "the 

### lawful exercise 

### of the Govemment's tax 

### collection powers does not amountto a

### taking." Gresolinev. 

### United States, 99 Fed.

### Cl. 161, 168 (2011) 

### (quoting Fryv. United States 

### ,72 Fed. 

### Cl. 500, 509 

### (2006). Therefore, the court must 

### "look to thetrue nature 

### of the action 

### in determining the existence

. . .

### ofjurisdiction." Karz, 16 F.3d 

### at 1207 

### (internal citations omitted). The court also considers 

### who is being sued, as

### it determines whether 

### jurisdiction exists. The court may hear claims 

### properly brought against the 

### United States

### only. 28 U.S.C. 

### $

## la9l(aXl). The court "does not have

### jurisdiction over any claims alleged against states, 

### localities, state and 

### local government entities, or state and local govemment 

### officials and

### employees." Anderson v. 

### United States, 1 17 Fed. 

### Cl. 330, 33 1 (2014) 

### (intemal citations 

### omitted); see 

### Brown v. United States, 105 F. 3d 621, 624 

### (Fed. 

### Cir. 1997). Nor do claims against an 

### individual federal actor

### fall within the 

### court's limited 

### jurisdiction. See Shalhoub v. 

### United States,75 Fed. 

### Cl. 584, 585 (2007). 

### Plaintiff stakings claims are based on actions taken by 

### Ms. Green acting as 

### private counsel and, asalleged, acting on

### behalfofthe State 

### of 

### Florida. The court is 

### without

### jurisdiction to hcar thcsc claims. 

# B. The

### Court Does 

### Not Have

### Jurisdiction Over 

### Plaintiff s Property 

### Lien Claim
The

### filing of a notice 

### of a

### tax lien against a

### property interest does not effect a 

### takings. First 

### Atlas Fundine Corp. Through 

### Kerstingv. 

### United States,23 

### Cl. Ct. 137,139 (1991), 

### aff d, 954 

### F.2d733 (Fed.

### Cir. 1992) (dismissing 

### plaintiffs' case

### for failure 

### to

state a

### claim because the

### filing of a lien is not a 

### regulatory or statutory 

### taking). As such, 

### "an injunction against 

### [the] enforcement 

### of [a] lien, or adeclaration that 

### [a] lien is unenforceable is not 

### within this 

### court's specific 

### powers." Id. 

### Ms. Langley asserts that her ex-husband and 

### Ms. Green 

### "filed an erroneous lien on the 

### Plaintiff s homestead 

### without 

### Plaintiff sconsent or 

### knowledge." Pl.'s Resp., 9, ECF 

### No. 13; see also 

### id. at 8.2 

### Plaintiff asks the court to

### void the lien, but the court is

### without jurisdiction to do so. 

# C. The Court Lacks 

### Jurisdiction Over 

### Plaintiff sTax Refund Claims Under 

### I.R.C. g 6512 The court may consider, 

### in appropriate circumstances,federal tax refund claims. See Smith v. 

### United States, 495 Fed. 

### Appx. 

### 44,48 (Fed. 

### Cir.2012) (citing 28 

### U.S.C. $ 7

### a22@)). 

### A taxpayer seeking a refund 

### of taxes erroneously or 

### unlawfully assessed or collected may 

### bring an action against the Govemment either 

### in federal 

### district court or 

### in this 

### court. See 28 

### U.S.C. $ 13a6(aX1). 

### To invoke the court's

### jurisdiction over such aclaim, the 

### plaintiff must satis$/ the requirements set 

### forth in the 

### Intemal Revenue Code 

### (I.R.C.). The I.R.C. requires 

### "that a 

### claim for a refund must be

### filed 

### with the 

### [IRS] before suit can be brought, and 

### [it] establishes strict timeframes 

### for

### filing such a

### claim." Buser 

### v. United States, 85 Fed. 

### Cl. 248,256 (2009) 

### (quoting United States

### v. Clinrwood Elkhom 

### Mining Co., 553 

### U.S. 1,4 (2008)). 

### If ataxpayer elects to pursue a refund claim before the

### Tax Court, neither this court nor the 

### United States 

### Court of Appeals 

### for the Federal 

### Circuit can 

### review its 

### judgments. See. e.g.,

### Acayv. United States, 168 

### F.3d 1321 (Fed.

### Cir. 1998) 

### (citing 26 

### U.S.C. $

### 7a82@)(l) ("The United States Courts of Appeals (other than rhe 

### United States 

### Court

### ofAppeals for the Federal 

### Circuit) shall have exclusive 

### jurisdiction to review the decisions of the 

### Tax

### Court.")). Moreover, this court iswithout 

### jurisdiction to hear a 

### claim that the

### Tax Court already has 

### adjudicated. Wong 

### v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 553, 

### 554-55 (2001); Beatty v. 

### United States, 121 Fed. 

### CI.283,286 (2015). When ataxpayer receives a notice 

### of deficiency and acts

### within the applicable 

### time 

### limit, "the taxpayer may 

### file a

### petition 

### with the

### Tax Courtfor a redetermination 

### of the 

### deficiency." I.R.C. $

### 6213(a). When ataxpayer takesthis course 

### of action, 

### "no credit or refund 

### of income 

### taxfor the same taxable year

. . .

### in

. . .

### which the Secretary has determined the 

### deficiency shall be 

### allowed

. . . and no suit by thetaxpayer for the 

# 2 h appears that there was an 

### elror in ECF 

### No. 

### l3 and pages 8-9 of 

### plaintiff s Resp. are located on ECF page numbers 

### 47 and48.recovery 

### ofany part 

### of thetax shall be 

### instituted in any 

### court," except in 

### limited

circumstances. 

### Id. $ 65 

### 12(a). The 

### limited circumstances are set

### forth below: 

### A taxpayer may 

### institute asuit 

### in another court regarding the same tax year that was adjudicated in the 

### United StatesTax Court 

### (Tax Court) 

### if the suit 

### in the other court 

### is for recovery 

### of:

## (l) overpayments determined 

### by a

### final decision 

### of the

### Tax Court; (2) any amount collected 

### in excess 

### ofan amount 

### computed 

### in accordance 

### with a

### final decision 

### of the

### Tax Court; 

### (3) any amount collected after the 

### period 

### of limitation has 

### expired

### for making levy 

### or bringing a proceeding 

### in court

### for collection; 

### (4) overpayments 

### that are attributable 

### to partnership 

### items; (5) any amount collected 

### when collection or assessment was prohibited under 26 U.S.C. 

### (I.R.C.) $6213(a) 

### (prohibiting collection or assessment during the 

### periodfor

### filing in theTax 

### Court); or (6) 

### ifappeal 

### ofa Tax Court decision is pending, refunds or credits authorized by 

### the

### Tax Court decision

### to the extent 

### that overpayments 

### giving rise

### to the refunds or credits are not contested on appeal. 

### SeeI.R.C.$6512(a)-(b)(2006). Section65l2(a)ofthel.R.C.,alsoprovidesthat 

## "if ataxpayer 

### properly files a

### petition 

### with the Tax Court, he cannot later 

### file a 

### claim inthe Court 

### of Federal Claims or 

### in a

### district court

### to obtain acredit 

### or refund for the same taxable

### year." Cheesecake Factory 

### Inc.v. 

### United States, 111 Fed.

### Cl.686,691 (2013) 

### (quoting Smith 

### v. United States,495 Fed.

### Appx.44,48 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (unpublished). The court has reviewed 

### Ms. Langley's tax refund 

### claims. Under 

### I.R.C. $ 6512(a), she is precluded 

### from reasserting them here. From 

### Ms. Langley's case before the

### Tax Court, the court gleans that the IRS and, in 

### tum, the 

### Tax Court determined that she has an outstanding 

### tax 

### liability. The Tax 

### Court construed her 

### claim as "a request that the Court order

. . . [a] refund to Petitioner $48,323.70 

### of tax overpayment 

### plus interest

### for years 2004 to 2010." 

### 3The Tax 

### Court rejected 

### plaintiffs request and sustained the proposed 

### levy to 

### collect the unpaid balances 

### for tax years 2006 and

### 2009. See Langley, 201 5

### WL 392980, at

### *2-5. The

### Tax Court also dismissed, as moot, her refund claims 

### for tax years 2008 and

### 2010. Id. Unsatisfied 

### with those 

### findings, Ms. Langley 

### filed a

### complaint in this court again seeking a 

### refund for tax years 2004through 2010, the same tax years 

# 3 Ms. Langley also requested that the Court order 

### "Barney Langley be removed 

### from the

### title to 

### my home that he gave up 

### his interest 

### in, on Sept 

### 22,2004 so

### that Petitioner can reduce vs increase the loss incurred/Petitioner is 

### incurring onthat 

### former marital asset 

### goingforwardto 

### 2014." Lansle),, 2015

### WL 392980, 

### at*4.addressed by the 

### Tax

### Court. See 

### Langley, 2015

### WL 392980. Ms. Langley also

seeks a refund, 

### with interest, 

### for thetax years 

### 2011-2013. Compl.9-10. Although Ms. Langley's tax refund claims 

### for tax years 2011-2013 were not before the

### Tax Court, the IRS 

### did direct 

### Ms. Langley 

### to

### file computational statements 

### for the "carrybacWcarry 

### forward years (2008, 

### 2009,2011 and2012)." Compl.App.

### A,2l-23; Langley,20l5 WL 392980, at

### *3. By letter dated

### August 1.2014- the IRS indicated that her claims 

### for 2008-2009 and

### 2011-2012had several defects that neededto be

### conected. 

### Am. Compl., 

### App. 

### B 15, ECF 

### No. 8. 

### Ms. Langley's claims 

### for tax years 2011-2013 derive 

### from the earlier refund claims she brought unsuccessfully before the 

### Tax

### Court. See 

### Compl. App.

## A,2l23; compare 

### id. at22 (misstating that the

### tax court decided in her 

### favor for tax year 2010),

### with Langley, 2015

### WL 392980, at

### *5 (dismissing her claims 

### for tax year 2010 as moot). The

### Tax Court already has heard 

### Ms. Langley's refund claims through 

### 2010. The latter claims are related to those earlier claims, and must be heard by theTax 

### Court. See Buser, 85 Fed. 

### Cl. at

### 258. None 

### of the 

### limited circumstances that 

### would allow her to 

### bring suit under Section 65

## l2(l) apply. Thus, the court lacks

### jurisdiction to hear

### plaintiff stax refund claims. 

# IV. Conclusion For these reasons, defendant's Amended 

### Motion to 

### Dismiss is

### GRANTED. The 

### Clerk of the 

### Court is directed to enter

### judgment for the 

### government. No costs. 

### IT IS SO 

### ORDERED.