# ORIGINAT

No. 12-390 

### T Filed: August

### 20,2014
** j+,1,t

### 'i*{.*,t{.**t(t,t :l':i(,t r(,***t 

###  {'** ****t * *,t *



### MARK A. 

### HILL,
Plaintiff,pro se,

THE TINITED STATES,

Defendant. 

# TJntlSt 

# @nite! 

# btutts @surt of

# /e[erg[ @t{*ruED

AUG

## 90 2014



## 'EiieSRiSh?fi' 26 U.S.C. $ 6402 (reducing overpayments to cover outstanding 

### liabilities); 28 U.S.C. $ 1346; 31 U.S.C. $ 3343 (check forgery insurancefund); 31 U.S.C. $ 3716 (Treasury Offset Program); 

### Pro Se1' RCFC 56 (summaryjudgment).



### ***:t * '{'*{.,,:t**,.:t ,f

### t(**:+*+****'t :t:*,.:t*:***** 

###  


### Mark A. 

### HiIl, Chillicothe, Ohio, Plaintiff, 

### pro se. 

### Michael

### J. Ronickher, United States Department 

### of Justice, 

### Tax Division, Washington, D.C., Counsel for the Govemment.



### MEMORANDUM OPINION AND 

### FINAL JUDGMENT BRADEN, Jzdge. 

# I. RELEVANTFACTUALBACKGROUND.'
Mark

### A. 

### Hill ("Plaintiff'or "Mr. 

### Hill") is seeking payment 

### of his misappropiated 2007 tax refund checkfor $1,182.46, as

### well as interest, punitive damages, and a 

### ruling exempting this payment 

### from theTreasury Offset Program, established 

### by 31 U.S.C. $

### 3716. Compl. 

### 4-5; see a/so Pl. 

### Mot. 8-9.
On August 5, 2008, the Intemal Revenue Service 

### ("IRS") informed 

### Mr. 

### Hill that histax retum for 2007 "was received but could not be

### found." Compl. fl 2, Exs. I

### , I 3.



## I The relevant 

### facts discussed 

### herein 

### were derived 

### from: 

### Plaintiffs June 18, 2012 

### Complaint 

### ("Compl.") and eighteen attached unnumbered 

### exhibits ("Compl. 

### Exs. 1-18"); 

### Plaintiff

## s December 

## 6, 2013 

### Motion 

## For Sumrnary 

### Judgment 

### ("P1. 

### Mot."), and the Govemment's 

### May 1,2014 Response 

### ("Gov't Resp.").On January 

### 19,2009, the IRS sent a letter

### to Mr. 

### Hill instructing 

### him to send 

### "a newly

signed copy of the 2007 tax 

### return." Compl. 

### Ex.2.
On February 

### 27,2009, 

### Mr. 

### Hill was sentenced to an eight-year prison

### term. Compl. Ex. 3 (containingtheJudgment Entry re: December 2008 criminal prosecution). 

### After sentencing, he 

### was transported 

## to the Corrections Reception Center 

### ("CRC") 

## in Orient, Ohio, where he executed 

### a copy 

### of his 2007 

### tax retum sometime

### in March

### 2009. On

### April 2, 2009, he was transferred to the Chillicothe Correctional Institution in Chillicothe, 

### Ohio. Compl. 

### Ex. 13. 

### On

### April 6, 2009, 

### the IRS Processing Center received 

### Mr. 

### Hill's 2007tax retum and processed 

### it on June 

### 5,2009. Compl. 

### Ex. 14. The IRS determined that 

### Mr. 

### Hill was entitled to a 

### tax refund 

### of $1,182.46, and, on June

### 5,2009, mailed 

### a check

### for that amount

### to the address provided on 

### Plaintiff s2007 Form 1040tax 

### retrun. Compl. 

### Ex. 14;

### Gov't Resp. 

### Ex. 

### I atA-2.


### On June

### 29, 2009, the 

### refund check was returned 

### by the United States postal Office, marked 

### undeliverable. 

### compl. Ex. 

### 14. The IRSthen issued a refund notice and requested 

### Mr. 

### Hill's cunent 

### mailing address. Compl. 

### Ex. 

### 14. This notice was received by prison authorities 

### who "erroneously delivered" 

### it to another inmate also named 

### Mark 

### Hill C'Hill II"),2 although 

### it contained 

### Mr. 

### Hill's personal 

### information, including 

### his taxpayer 

### identification number and social security number, 

### which 

### Hill II used

### to impersonate 

### Mr. 

### Hill and obtain the refund check. 

### Gov't Resp. 

### 2; Gov't Resp. 

### Ex.2at A-5; Compl. 

### Ex. 14. 

### OnJuly9,2009, the IRS was contacted 

### via its 

### toll-free phone number by an 

### individual who claimed the refund and provided an address 

### in Waverly, 

### Ohio. Compl. 

### Ex. 14;

### Gov't Resp. Ex. 2

### atA-5. On July24,2009, the IRS issued the refund tothe

### waverly, 

### ohio address. 

### compl. 

### Ex. 14. 

### Hill 

### II subsequently cashed the check at First check cash Advance, endorsing 

### it as 

### "Mark 

### Hill" without the middle 

### initial, even though 

### it was addressedto 

### "Mark A. 

## Hill." Gov't Resp. Ex. 2 atA-5.
On October 21, 2009, the IRS informed 

### Mr. 

### Hill that his 2007 tax refund check $1,182.46 

### was issued

### on J.uly 

### 24,

### 2009. Mr. 

## Hill promptly submitted 

### an IRS Form 3911, Taxpayer Statement Regarding 

### Refund. compl. Ex.

### 5. on January 20,2010, the IRS notified 

### Mr. 

### Hill that 

### it would takefour to sixweeksto tracethe refund 

### check. 

### compl. Ex.

### 6. on August

### 2,2010, the 

### IRS informed 

## Mr. 

## Hill that an additional 

### forty-five days 

### was needed

## to complete the 

### investigation. 

### compl. Ex.

## 8. Mr. 

## Hill subsequently requested assistance

### from the Taxpayer Advocate Service, who, on 

### May 10, 2011, provided 

### him

### with a copy 

### of the cancelled 2007

### tax refund check andthe location where 

### it was cashed. Compl. Exs. 

### l

## l, 12. 

### On 

### May 19, 2011, 

## Mr. 

## Hill sent

## a letter

## to Secretary 

## of the Treasury, requesting assistance 

### in obtaining 

### his 

### refund. compl. 

### Ex. 

## 13. on August 

## l, 2011, 

### Mr. 

### Hill received a response 

### from the 

### IRSwage and Investment 

### Division, explaining

### that 

### his refund was misappropriated and 

### providing information

### to resolve the 

### mafter. compl. 

### Ex. 

### 14. Thereafter, 

## Mr. 

## Hill submitted 

### an 

### Affidavit 

## of Accusation 

### on September 

### 21, 2011,

## to six separare organizations

### to obtain t}le 2007

### tax refund, 

### which led

### to an investigation 

### of the Chillicothe



### 'The identity of the 

### individual who cashed Mark 

### Hill's 2007 tax refund check is redacted 

### in the 

### oSHP Investigation Report, although 

### the Govemment's Response,

### which was 

### not filed under seal, states that his name is 

### Mark

### Hill. SeeGov,t Resp. 2

### & Ex. 2.Correctional 

### Institution, the Institution Liaison, and Investigator 

### from the Ohio State Highway

Patrol 

### ("OSHP"). Compl. 

### Ex. 15;

### Gov't Resp. Ex. 2.
On October 12, 2011, 

### Mr. 

### Hill completed and submitted IRS forms 

### for "Claims Against the 

### United States For the Proceeds 

### of a Govemment 

### Check" (FMS Form 3858 and 

### FMS form I 133), as directed 

### by the Financial Management Service 

### of the Deparhnent 

### of the Treasury and the OSHP 

### Investigator. Compl. 

### flfl 18-19 

### (citing OSHP Case #11-036035-0900);

### id Ex. 

### 16. On November 30, 2011, 

### Mr. 

### Hill received correspondence 

### from a Legal Administrative Specialist 

### of the Check Resolution 

### Division asking

### for additional 

### information,which 

### Plaintiff submitted on December 

### 13,2011. Compl. Exs. 17, 18. 

# I PROCEDURALHISTORY.
On June 

### 18,2012, 

### Mark 

## Hill filed a Complaint 

### in the 

### United States

### Court 

### of Federal Claims, pursuant 

### to RCFC 

### 9(m) and 

### 28 U.S.C.

### g 1346,

### to obtain 

### his 2007 federal income tax refund, 

### in the amount 

### of $1,182.46, 

### plus appropriate interest

### for each year beyond 2008, and $1,182.46 

### in punitive damages. Compl. at

### 4-5. The Complaint also demanded the costs 

### of this action be paid and thatthe monetary judgment awarded not be subject 

### to any

### offset, including court costs and student loan 

### debt. Compl. at

### 4-5. 

### On December 

### 18,2012, the Govemment

### filed an Answer, stating, 

### inter 

### alia, Ihat 

### "[P]laintiff is not entitled

### to recover 

### for a second time any amounts that have been already paid 

### to him by any agency 

### of the 

### United States," and 

### that 

### "this [c]ourt has no

### jurisdiction 

### to hear 

### Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages

. . . because the United States has notwaived its sovereign 

### immunity for such 

### claims." Answer flr]l

### 25-26. The Govemment also stated that, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. $ 6402, any recovery 

### by 

### Plaintiff may be credited against certain outstanding 

### liabilities, including 

### liability for any intemal revenue 

### tax. Answer tl 27.
On June 

### 20,2013, Plaintiff filed a 

### Motion For Production 

### Of Documents and requested a 

### court order 

### requiring Trooper S. 

### Wells and Investigator P. 

### Arledge 

### "to produce, and provide 

### Plaintiff, 

## a report 

## of facts and conclusions determined 

### from 

## the investigation

## of the misappropriated 2007 Federal Income Tax Refund Check 

### in the amount 

### of $1,182.46." On June 

### 24,2013, the

### cout granted 

### Plaintiffs June

### 20, 2013 

### Motion For Production 

### Of Documents, construing 

### the motion as "requesting 

### a subpoena 

### for production

### of documents 

### in existence." 

### Altematively, in accordance 

### with RCFC 31(a), the court stated that 

### Plaintiff may depose thetwo 

### individuals named 

## in his Motion For Production

## of Documents 

### by written 

### questions. In accordance

### with the court's June 

### 24,2013 order, Trooper Sheni 

### wells produced the September 

### 30,2011 Ohio State 

### Highway Patrol Report 

### of Investigation, Constitutional Rights Waiver, and Statement Form ("OSHP 

### Report"). See

### Gov't Resp. Ex. 2.
On December 6, 2013, 

### Plaintiff filed a 

### Motion For Summary Judgment (,.p1. 

### Mot."). 

### On 

### May 1, 2014,

### the Govemment

### filed an Opposition 

### To plaintiffls Motion For Summary Judgment 

### ("Gov't Resp."). Plaintiff did not

### file a Reply.

## III. DISCUSSION.



# A. Jurisdiction.
The 

### United States

### Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims has

### jurisdiction under 

### the Tucker 

### Act, 28 

### U.S.C. 

### $ 1491, 

### "to render

### judgment upon 

### any claim against 

### the United States founded either uponthe 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. $ 

### 1a91(aXl). The Tucker

### Act, however, is 

### "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). Congress has authorized the 

### United States

### Court 

### of Federal Claims to adjudicate 

### "[a]ny 

### civil action againstthe United States 

### for the recovery 

### of any intemal-revenue tax alleged to have been enoneously or 

### illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected 

### without authority 

### or any sum alleged

### to have been excessive 

### or 

### in any manner 

### wrongfully collected under the intemal-revenue 

### laws[.]" 28 U.S.C. $ 13a6(a)(1). 

### Intax refund suits, 

### the 'Jurisdiction 

### of the [United States] 

### Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims is 

### limited by the Intemal Revenue 

### Code." 

### llaltnerv. United States,679 

### F.3d 1329,1332-33 (Fed,. 

### Cir.2012); see

### also United States 

### v. Clintwood Elkhorn 

### Mining Co., 553 

### U.S. 1,

### 4, S-9 (2003) (explaining that ataxpayer suing in the United States Court 

### of Federal Claimsto obtain a refund must 

### "comply with thetax refund scheme established 

### in the

### Code"). Jurisdiction 

### is established 

### if: (1) thetaxpayer has paid his

### full federal tax 

### liability for the yearfor which he claims a refund; (2) before 

### filing suit, the taxpayer 

### timely files anadministrative claim for the refund 

### with the IRS 

### for the amount 

### at issue; and 

### (3) subsequently, 

### the taxpayer

### timely files suit ,,provid[ing] the amount, date, and place 

### of each payment to be refunded, as

### well as a copy 

### of the refund claim', pursuant to RCFC 

### 9(m). 2

### Cyc. oF FED. Pnoc. g2:413 (3d ed.) (updatedAug. 2014); see

### also26 U.S.C. $ 7422(a) 

### ("No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any intemal revenuetax alleged to have been erroneously or 

### illegally assessed or collected, or

### ofany penalty claimed 

### to have been collected 

### without authority, 

### or

### of any sum alleged 

### to have been excessive or 

### in any manner 

### wrongfully collected, 

### until aclaim 

### for refund or credit has been 

### duly 

### filedwith the 

### secretary[.]"); 26 

### u.S.c. g 6511(a) (setring the period 

### of limitation on

### filing an administrative tax refund claim 

### with the IRS); 26 

### u.s.c. $ 6532(a) 

### ('No suit or proceeding under section 7422(a) 

### for the recovery 

### of any intemal revenue 

### tax, penalty,

### or other sum, 

### shall be begun before the expiration 

### of 6 months 

### from the date 

### offiling the 

### claim required under such section unlessthe Secretary renders a decision thereon 

### within that time, nor after the expiration 

### of 2 years 

### from the date

### of mailing by certified mail or registered 

### mail by the Secretary 

### to the taxpayer 

### ofa notice

### ofthe disallowance 

### of the part 

### of the claim 

### to which thesuit or proceeding relates."); 

### shorev. united states,9 F.3d, 1524, 1526 (Fed.

## cir. 1993) (holding that atax refund claim must be dismissed 

### if the "principal tax deficiency has not been paid in

### full,'). 

## In addition, 

### the 

### united states 

### court

## of Federal 

### claims has

### jurisdiction under 31 U.S.C. $ 3343 to determine whether ataxpayer is entitled to a replacement check from the Check Forgery Insurance Fund, since that statute is money-mandatin

### g. See 

### Curtin v. IJnited Stotes,glFed.

### Cl. 683, 

### 687-88 (2010) (determining 

### that Section 3343 

### is "a money-mandating statute").

To establish entitlement to 

### reliefunder Section 3343, the taxpayer must establish that: (1)the check was lost 

### or stolen without the

### fault 

### ofthe payee or a holder that is a special endorsee and whose endorsement is necessary 

### for further negotiation; (2) the check was negotiated later and paid by the Secretary 

### or a depositary on a forged endorsement of the payee's or special endorsee's name; and (3) the payee

### or special endorsee has not participated 

### in any part 

### of the proceeds of the negotiation or payment.

31 U.S.C. $

### 33430); see also 

### Curtin, 91 Fed. Cl. at 688 (discussing 

### tle requirements 

### of Section 3343).


### In this case, 

### the court has

### jurisdiction to adjudicate

### the claims alleged 

### in the June 18, 2012 Complaint under both 28 U.S.C. $ 1346 and 31 U.S.C. $ 3343.



# r. 28 U.S.C. g 1346.


### As 

### to Section 1346, the evidence demonstrates 

### that 

### Plaintiff filed his 2007 Individual Federal Income 

### Tax Retum 

### on

### April 15,2008 and paid 

### the federal

### tax 

### liability due

### for 2007. 

### Compl. Exs. 

### 2, 14; 

### Gov't Resp. 

### Ex. 1

### atA-2. The evidence also demonstrates 

### that the IRS determined that 

### Plaintiff overpaid 

### his 2007 taxes 

### by $1,176 and was entitled 

### to a refund 

### in the 

### amountof$1,182.46 ($1,176p|us $6.46 in interest). 

### Gov't Resp. 

### Ex.

# l atA-2.
Plaintiff also has established 

### that he

### timely 

### filed an administrative 

### claim 

### for his 2007 refund check 

### with the 

### IRS. The 

### Intemal Revenue 

### code requires a taxpayer 

### to

### file a 

### claim 

### for refund

### with the IRS 

### filed 

### within "3 years 

### from thetime the retum was 

### filed or 2 years

### from the time thetax was paid,whichever 

### of such periods expires the later[.1,, 26 U.S.C. $ 651

### lia;; see also 

### clintwood Elbwood 

### Mining,553 

### u.s. at 5 

### ("[U]nless a 

### claim

### for refund 

### of a

### tax has been 

### filedwithin thetime 

### limits imposed 

### by $ 6511(a), asuit for 

### refund.

. .may not be maintained 

### in any

### court." (quoting United States v. 

### Dalm,494 U.S. 596,602 

### (1990)). Therefore, 

### in order to comply 

### with the 

### limitations set 

### forth 

### in 26 

### U.S.c. g 6511(a), 

### Plaintiff must have

### filed a refund claim 

### with the IRS no laterthan

### April, 15,

### 2011. see 26

### u.s.c. g

### 6511(a). 

### plainriff, however, 

### did not submitthe 

### IRS formal claims 

### documents-Form FMS-3858 

### (claims Document) and Form 

### FMS-I133 

### (claim Against the 

### united states 

### for the proceeds 

### of a Govemment

## check)- until October 12,

### 2011. Compl. 

### Ex. 16; Program Operations 

### Manual System 

### (POMS) GN 0240 1.908, Social Security Administrarion (

### April 21, 20 14). 

### "Under 

### the informal claims doctrine, 

### a timely claim 

### with purely formal defects is permissible 

### if it fairly apprises the IRS 

### of the basis

### for the claim 

### within the 

### limitations oeriod.,' computervision 

### corp. v. unitedstates,445 F.3d 1355, 1364 (Fed. 

### cir. 2006); see 

### also lhestern 

### Co. 

### of N. Am.v. United States, 323 F.3d, 

### 1024, 1035 

### (Fed.

### Cir. 2003) (recognizing 

### rhat the 

### informal claim doctrine applies where the taxpayer repeatedly requested 

### information 

### from the

'I -Avq t Ia b Iedr http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lrlx/020240I908.

### IRS). The record 

### inthis case establishes that 

### Plaintiff made several 

### informal claims

### to the IRS



### within the

### tlree-year 

### period. The United States Supreme Court has held that 

### "a [timely] notice 

### fairly advising the Commissioner

### of the nature 

### of thetaxpayer's 

### claim.

. .

### will nevertheless be treated as a[n effective] claim, where formal defects

. . . have been remedied by amendment

### filed after the lapse

### of the statutory 

### period." United Statesv. 

### Kales,314 U.S. 186, 194 

### (1941). In ll'estern
,the IRS erroneously assessed the taxpayer 

### a "failure-to-fi1e" 

### penalty. Western,323 F.3d

### at 1035. The taxpayer, 

### in response, "repeatedly requested 

### information about the basis

### for the penalty but did not

### file a

### formal 

### claim." 

### Id. These requests were documented in

### writing. 

### Id Under these circumstances, the taxpayer's 

### refund claim was 

### not baned, because, the 

### plaintiff "made repeated requests

## for information

### that would have allowed 

## filing

## of an informed 

### claim....[andthatservedto]putthelRSonnoticeof[plaintiffs]challenges;'ld.at1034-35.
Inthis case, 

### Plaintiff frrst inquired into the status 

### of his refund on August 5,2008, after which the IRS confirmed that his 2007 tax retum was received, but could not be

### found. Compl. 

### Ex. 

### 1. On January 19,2009,the 

### IRS sent a letter

### to 

### Plaintiff instructing 

### him

### to send .,a newly signed copy 

### of the

### original 2007 tax 

### retum." Plaintiff did so 

### in March 

### of 

### 2009. Compl. Ex. 2. The IRS Processing 

### center received the new 2007 tax retum on

### April 6,2009 and processed 

### it on June 5,

### 2009. Compl. 

### Ex. 

### 14. The IRS determined that 

### Plaintiff was entitled to atax refund 

### of $1,182.46, and, on June 

### 5,2009, mailed a check 

### for that amount to the address provided on 

### Plaintiff s2007 

### Form 1040 

### tax 

### retum. Gov't Resp. 

### Ex. 

## I at A-2;

### compl. Ex. 

## 14. plaintiff continued 

### to conespond 

### with the IRS andvarious other parties, 

### within the period

### of limitations established 

### by 26 

### U.S.c. g 6511,

### to obtain 

### his refund check, 

### including submitting 

### Form 3911 (Taxpayer Statement 

### Requiring Refund), 

### providing 

### the IRS

### with information 

### to facilitate its 

### effort 

### to locate 

### Plaintiff s refund 

### check. compt. 

### tf 7, Ex.

## 5. Therefore, 

### plaintiff repeatedly requested 

### information

### via

### witten correspondence regarding the status

### of his refixrd throughout the 

### limitations period and 

### "put the IRS on 

### notice" of the basis 

### for his

### claim. see western, 323 F.3d 

### at 1035. Therefore, under

### the informal claims doctrine, 

### PlaintifPs suit is not barred 

### for failing to

### timely

### file anadministrative refund claim 

### with the IRS.


### In addition, 

### Plaintiff timely filed the June 18, 2012 Complaint 

### in the United States Court 

### of Federal 

### claims, complying 

### with the requirements 

### of RCFC 

### 9(m). To

### timely 

### file suit 

### for atax refund, 

### Plaintiff must have 

### filed not before "the expiration of 6 months 

### fiom the date of

### filing the claim

. . . unless the Secretary renders a decision thereon

### within that time, nor after the expiration 

### of 2 years 

### from the date

### of mailing by certified mail or registered 

### mail by the Secretary to the taxpayer 

### of a notice 

### of the disallowance 

### of the part 

### of the claim 

### to which thesuit or proceedine 

### relates." 26

## u.s.c. g 6532(a). 

### In rhis case,

### plaintiff began 

### submitting 

### "informal

## ilui.r" oi August 5, 2008 andthe IRS was 

### "put on notice" 

### ofhis refund claim on June 5, 2009 atthe latest. Compl. Exs. 1, 

### 14. Both 

### of these dates iue more than six months 

### priorto the

### filing of 

### Plaintiff s 

### complaint 

### in the 

### court 

### of Federal 

## claims. Jee 

### 26 

### u.s.c. $ 6532(a). Moreover, 

### plaintiff commenced this suit 

### priorto "the expiration of 2 years from the date of mailing by certified mail or registered 

### mail by the Secretaryto the taxpayer 

### of a notice

### ofthe disallowance 

### ofthe part

### of the claim to which the suit or proceeding relates," becausethe Secretary never mailed to

### plaintiff 

## a "notice 

## of disallowance

## of the part 

## of the claim

## to which 

### the

# suit relates." 26 U.S.C. $ 6s32(a).

# 2. 31 U.S.C. g 3343.



### The court also has

### jurisdiction under 

### 31 U.S.C.

### $ 3343, since

### that statute 

### is a moneymandating source 

### of substantive law andthefacts alleged in theJune 18,2012 Complaint satisfr the requirements 

### for 

### relief. See

### Curtin,9l Fed. Cl. at

### 687-88. Indeed, the Govemment does not contest that 

### Plaintiff "meets the statutory 

### criteria" for 

### relief. Gov't Resp. 3 

### ("The [United States Court ofFederal Claims] has found [Section 3343] is money-mandating and thus that

### jurisdiction properly exists over 

### [P]laintiffs claims 

### for a new 

### check. Here, the facts indicate that 

### [P]laintiff meetsthe statutory 

### criteria." (citing 

### Curtin,9l Fed. Cl. at

### 687).



## ** *

For these reasons, the United States Court 

### ofFederal Claims has

### jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims alleged in theJune 18, 2012 Complaint. 

# B. Standard Of Review 

### For Pra ,Se 

### Litigants.
The pleadings 

### of a

### pro se

### plaintiff are 

### held

### to a less stringent standard than those

### of litigants represented 

### by counsel


# . see Hainesv. 

### Kerner,404 

## u.s. 5lg, 520 (1972) (per curiam) 

### (holding that

### pro se complaints, "however 

### inartfully pleaded,,' 

### are held

## to ,,less stringent standards than

### formal pleadings drafted 

### by 

### lawyers"). 

### It has beenthe

### tradition of this court to examine the record 

### "to see

## if fa

### pro se]

### plaintiff has a cause 

### of action somewhere displayed.,' Manuel v. united 

### states,78 Fed.

### cl. 3r,34 (2007) (quoting Ruderer 

### v. 

### united states, 

### lgg

### ct. 

### cl. 456,468 

### (1969)). Nevertheless, 

### while the court may excuse ambiguities 

### in a

### pro se

### plaintiff s complaint, the court "does not excuse [a

### complaint's]

### failures." Henke

### v. united states, 60 F.3d 

### 795,799 (Fed.

### Cir. 1995); see 

### also llozniak 

### v. United States,

## 2lg Ct. 

### Cl. 5g0,

## 5gl (1979) (holding that even 

### in a

### pro se tax suit a

### timely claim for refund must be

### filed to invoke the coun.s 

### jurisdiction). 

# C. Standard 

### Of Review 

### For 

## A Motion 

### For Summary Judgment pursuant To RCFC 56.



### on a motion 

### for summary iudgment, the moving party must show that there is no genuine issue as

### to any material 

### fact, and

### that he 

### is entitled

### tojudgment as

### a matter

## of law. see Moden v. 

### united states,404 F.3d 1335, 1342 (Fed. 

## cir. 2005) ("summary iudgment 

### is only appropriate 

### if the record showsthat there is no genuine issue asto any material fact and that

### thl moving party is entitled tojudgment as a matter 

### of law."); see also RCFC 

### 56(c). 

### only genuine disputes 

### of material facts 

### that might affectthe outcome 

## of the 

### suit

## will preclude 

### entry

### of summary 

### iudgment. SeeAnderson 

### v. Liberty Lobby, 

### Inc., 477 U.S. 

### 242,248 (1986) (,,As to materiality, the substantive 

### law

### will identify which facts are 

### material. Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome 

### ofthe suit under the goveming law

### will properly preclude the entry 

### of summary 

### judgment. Factual disputesthat are irrelevant or uffiecessary

### wiil not be counted.,,). The existence 

### of "some alleged factual dispute between the parties 

### will not defeat an otherwise 

### properly supported 

### motion

### for s'mmary 

### iudgment." 

## Id. 

## at

## 2474g. To avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party must put

### forth evidence sufficient 

### for a reasonable finder 

### of faCt to retum averdict for that 

### party. Id. at

### 248-50.The 

### moving party bears the 

### initial burden 

### of demonstrating the absence 

### of any genuine

issue

### of material

### fact. See Celotex 

### Corp. 

### v. Cqtrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 

### (1986) (holding the moving party must meet its burden 

### "by 

### 'showing'-that is, pointing outtothe 

### [trial 

### court]-that there 

### is an absence

### of evidence

### to support 

### the nonmoving 

### party's case."); see 

### also 

### Riley 

### & Ephriam Constr. Co.

### v. United States, 408 F.3d 1369,1371(Fed. 

### Cir. 2005) ("The moving party bears the burden 

### of demonstrating the absence 

### of a genuine issue 

### of material 

### fact."). Oncethe 

### moving party demonstrates the absence 

### of a genuine issue 

### of material fact, the burden shiftsto the nonmoving 

### party

### to show 

### the existence 

### of a genuine issue

### of material 

### fact

### for

## trial. See 

### Novartis Corp. v. Ben Venue Labs, 

### [nc.,271 F.3d 1043, 1046 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2001) (explaining that, once a movant demonstrates the absence

### ofa genuine issue 

### of material fact, "the burden shifts to the nonmovant to designate specific facts showing thatthere is a genuine issue for 

### trial").
On a 

### motion 

### for summary 

### judgment, "the inferences 

### to be 

### drawn

### from the underlying facts



### . . . must beviewed 

### in the 

### light most favorable to the party opposing the 

### motion." United States v. Diebold, 

### Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962); see dlso Anderson,477 U.S. at255 (hotding 

### that 

### "alljustifiable inferences 

### be drawn 

## in [the non-moving 

### party's] favor."); Casitas Mun. 

### Il'ater Dist. 

### v. United States, 543 F.3d 1276, 1283 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2008)

### ("[A]ll justifiable inferences [are drawn] in favor of the party opposing summary judgment."). 

# D, PlaintifPs May 20,2014 

### Motion For Summary Judgment, 

# 1. PlaintifPs Argument.


### Plaintiff seeks summary judgment 

### for 

### "all relief sought 

### in the complaint, 

### including, but 

### not limited 

### to: (1) payment

### of$1,182.46 plus interest;" 

### (2) an award

### of punitive damages that 

### this court deems appropriate 

### "for the undue delay caused 

### by [the Govemment] 

### in resolving this 

### issue;" 

### (3) an order 

### that prohibits offsetting 

### his 2007 

### refund

### with any debts owed 

### to federal agencies 

### not past due 

### at the

### time when the 2007 

### tax refund was

### originally issued; and 

### (4) an order compelling the Government 

### "to pay the

### full cost 

### of the action, 

### including any reasonable amount determined to compensate 

### Plaintiff sexpenses in pursuing this case." Pl. 

### Mot. 8-9. 

### To

### qualifr for relief under 31 U.S.C. 

### $ 3343, i.e., obtain the 2007 tax refund check, ,,it must be established that: (1) the check was lost 

### or stolen 

### without the

### fault of the payee, 

### (2) the check was negotiated and paid 

### by theTreasurer on aforged endorsement 

### of payee's name, and 

### (3) the payee 

### did not participate 

### directly

### or indirectly 

### in the proceeds 

### of such negotiation or 

### payment." Pl. Mot. 

### 7 (citing 31 U.S.C. $ 3343(b) and

### Curtin, 

## gl Fed.

### Cl. at

### 688). plaintiff contends that the OSHP Report establishes undisputed factsthat satisfu 

### all three elements, 

### which are not contested by the Govemment.
In addition, 

### Plaintiff argues thatthe Govemment's defense against punitive damages is .,a 

### legal question 

### requiring 

### a de novo determination 

### bythis 

### [court]." pl. Mot. 7 (citing Gov't Answer

## fl 26 ("[T]his [c]ourt has nojurisdiction 

## to hear 

### [p]laintifps claim 

## for punitive damages.



### . . because the 

### united states has not waived sovereign 

### immunity 

### for such claims.")). 

### Plaintiff urges 

### this court

## to consider

### the fact that the IRS's failure

## to redact 

### Plaintiffs identification number on the notice 

### it issued to the CRC facilitated the other 

### individual's ability to appropriate 

### Plaintiffs refund 

### check. Plaintiff also contends thatthe 

### IRS's loss 

### of 

### Plaintiffs originaltax retum "contributed 

### to the resulting 

### misappropriation." 

### pl. Mot.

# 7. In addition,

### Plaintiff asserts 

### that 

### the IRS failed

### to take adequate 

### action

### to resolve 

### this issue 

### after being

informed 

### by an Ohio 

### law enforcement 

### officer that 

### Plaintiff s refund check had been cashed by a different 

### individual, and that 

### Plaintiff had not participated in the misappropriation, either directly or 

### indirectly. Pl. 

### Mot. 7. 

### Plaintiff also argues

### that 

### his 2007 refund check 

### is not subject 

### to the United States Department 

### ofTreasury Offset Program, that "allows theTreasury to transfer ataxpayer's refund 

### to another federal agency

### to pay ataxpayer's past duedebt," because 

### Plaintiff did not have any past due debts owed to any federal agency when histax refund was due 

### in 2008, or in 2009 after he resubmiued his 2007 tax 

### retum. Pl. 

### Mot. 8 

### (citing 31 U.S.C. 

### 93720A(a)). Accordingly, 

### if his 2007 refund was reduced, pursuant 

### to 26 

### U.S.C. 6402(d), that reduction 

### would amount 

### to "an offset by 

### illegal exaction." Pl. 

### Mot. 8. 

# 2. The Governmentts Response.
The Govemment confirms thatthe "operative facts 

### of the case" are not 

### disputed. Gov,t Resp.

## 2. Accordingly, the Govemment agees that 

### Plaintiff qualifies 

### for reissuaace 

### of his 2007 

### tax refund check, 

### in the amount

### of $1,182.46, under 31 

### U.S.C. $ 

### 3343.4 

### Gov't Resp. 

## 1. But, "summary 

### judgment should be denied

### to t1re extent 

### Plaintiff seeks interest 

### [on that amount], punitive damages, or a 

### ruling that payment [of that amount] is not subject

### to [the Treasury 

### offset Programl." Gov't Resp. 6. First, 

### Plaintiff cannot recover interest on his 2007 tax refund, because 31 U.S.C. $ 3343, does 

### not provide 

### for recovery 

### of interest. Gov't Resp. 

### 4 (citing

## 3l U.S.C. 

### g 3343(b) (.,The Secretary 

### of the Treasury shall 

### pay

### from the Fund

### to a payee 

### or special endorsee

### of a check 

### drawn onthe Treasury 

### or a depositary designated 

### by the secretary 

### the amount 

### of the check 

### without

### interestt.]).

## A reissuance

### of a

### tax refund check under

### the 

### check Forgery Insurance Fund, established 

### by 31 U.S.C. 

### $ 3343, 

### is technically a new payment, 

### not a

### tax 

### refund. So, 

### "[w]hile tax overpayments are refunded 

### with interest," new payments pursuant

### 3l U.S.C. $ 3343 

### are made

## in "the amount

### of the [original] check

### without 

### interest.,' Gov't Resp.

## 4 (citing 

### Clarkv.United Stqtes,206 

### F. Supp.2d.954 

### 0{.D. Ind.2002), 

### aff'd326 F.3d 911 

### (7th Cir. 2003)). Second, 

### the 

### united states

### court

## of Federal

### claims does 

### not have 

### jurisdiction to adjudicate 

### Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages. The Tucker

### Act is 

### "only a

### jwisdiction statute; 

## it does 

### not create 

### any substantive 

### right enforceable 

### against

### the United States

### for money damages." 

### Gov't Resp. 

### 4-5 (intemal quotations omitted) (quoting United States v. 

### Mitchetl,445 

## u.s. 535, 

### 538 (1980) and 

### restan, 

### 424

## u.s. at

## 398). Therefore, 

### plaintiff must 

### "identify a substantive 

### right 

### for money damages against the 

### United States separate 

### from the Tucker 

### Act.,'



### 'The facts establish that 

### Plaintiff has met the conditions established by 31 

### U.S.c. g 3343. 

### Gov't Resp'

## 3. First, the 2007 refund check was "deliberately redirected 

### by another 

### individual', "without 

### Plaintiff s

### knowledge." Gov't Resp. 3

### n.4. second, that 

### individual cashed the check, 

### endorsing

# it under 

### "Mark 

# Hill." Gov't Resp.

## 3 

## n.4. Third, "according 

## to the oSHp investigation," 

### Plaintiff was not aware

### of the 

### individual impersonating 

### him, andtherefore hadn't "participated 

### in any part of the proceeds of the negotiation or 

### payment." Gov't Resp. 3 n.4.

### Gov't Resp. 5 (intemal quotations omitted) (quoting Todd

### v. United States, 386 F.3d 1091, 1094

(Fed. Cir. 

### 2004)). 

### Plaintiff s refund claim is made pursuantto

### 3l U.S.C. g 3343, but that Section does 

### not contain 

### a punitive damages 

### provision. And, Plaintiff fails

### to identifr an altemative
source 

### of law that would provide 

### for recovery of punitive damages. 

### As such, this court does not have

### jurisdiction to adjudicate 

### Plaintiffls claim for punitive damages. 

### Gov't Resp. 4. 

### Third, the reissuance 

### of Plaintiff 

### s 2007

### tax refund check, 

### under

### the Check Forgery Insurance Fund, 

### is subject

### to the Treasury 

### Offset Program, established 

### by 31 U.S.C. g 3716, 

### which "provides 

### for offsets against any federal payments, except those specifically excepted, 

### in the amount 

### of any debt 

### certified 

### tothe Secretary 

### of the Treasury under 

### the Debt Collection 

## Act."' Pertinent case 

### law indicates that awide range

### of federal payments, 

### including awards

### of attomey's fees and "repayment

### of improperly seized funds," are subject to 

### offset. Gov't Resp. 6 

### (citing United States v.Approximately $3,174.00 

### in U.S. Currency, 928 F. Supp. 

### 2d. 1040 (E.D. 

### Wis. 

### 2013)). Payments made pursuant

### to 3

## I U.S.C. 

### $ 3343, however, are 

### not exempt 

### from operation

### of the Treasury Offset 

### Program. As a result, payment 

### of Plaintiff s2007

### tax refund checkwould be "subject

### to offset

. . . ,should 

### [P]laintiff have a

### qualifying 

### debt." Gov't Resp. 6 (citing 

### 3l U.S.C. g 3716(c)). 

# 3. The

### Court's Resolution. 

# a. Plaintiffls Entitled To $1,182.46.
Section 3343(b) provides that 

### (b) The Secretary 

### of the Treasury shall pay 

### from the Fund 

### to a payee

### or special endorsee 

### of a check 

### drawn on the Treasury 

### or a depositary designated 

### by the Secretarythe amount 

### of the check 

### without interest 

## if in the determination 

### of the Secretary the payee or special endorse establishes

## that- (1)the check was lost 

### or stolen 

### without the

### fault of the payee or a holder that 

### is a special endorsee andwhose endorsement is necessary 

### for further negotiation; 

### (2) the checkwas negotiated 

### later and 

### paid 

## bythe Secretary 

## or a depositary 

### on 

### a forged endorsement 

### of the payee,s 

### or special endorsee's name; and 

### (3) the payee 

### or special endorsee has 

### not participated 

### in any 

### part 

### of the proceeds 

### ofthe negotiation or payment. 

### 3l u.s.c. g 3343(b).

s

### Plaintiff s December 

### 6,2013 Motion For Summary Judgment cites 26 

### U.S.c. $ 6402 

### in addressing

### the issue

## of offset. Gov't Resp. 

### 5

## n.5. Section 

### $ 6402 ..permits 

### off.".t,

## fro. overpayments

### of tax," but a reissuance 

### of plaintiffs 2007 tax refund check, pursuant

### to 31 U.S.C. S3343, is a new payment, not atax 

### refund. Gov't Resp. 5 

### n.5. Thus, 26^U.S.C. g 6402 does not 

### apply. Gov't Resp. 5 n.5.

10

### The evidence adduced 

### by both parties, discussed herein, demonstrates 

### that 

### Plaintiffs

claim meets 

### the requisite conditions 

### for payment

## of $1,182.46, 

### under 

### the Check Forgery Insurance Fund, 31 U.S.C. $

### 3343. Compl. Ex. 4; 

### Gov't Resp.2,3 n.4; 

### Gov't Resp. Ex. 2.



# b. Interest. Cognizant 

### of 

### Plaintiff s

### pro se status, the court considers the June 18,2012 Complaint to allege 

### two distinct claims: 

### (1) atax refund, pursuant 

### to 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1346; and 

### (2) reissuance 

### of his stolen June

### 5, 2009 refund check, 

### pusuant 

### to 31 U.S.C. 

### g

### 3343. Compl. 

### at 1 

### (citing 28 U.S.C. $ 1346); Pl. 

### Mot. 7 (arguing that 

### Plaintiff qualifies for relief under 31 U.S.C. $ 3343). 

### As discussed above, 

### the United States 

### Court

## of Federal 

### Claims has

### jurisdiction to adjudicate 

### a

### tax refund claim pursuart

### to 28 U.S.C.

### $ 1346. The relevant 

### goveming statute conceming 

### interest,26 U.S.C.$ 6611, provides: "Interest shall be allowed and paid upon any overpayment 

### in respect 

### ofany intemal revenue

### tax[.]" The IRS, 

### intum, has interpreted Section 661 

### I to allow, generally, the payment 

### of interest 

### "on any overpayment anytax

. . .from the date 

### of overpayment 

### of the

### tax," 

### with some exceptions. 26 C.F.R. $ 301.6611-l;6 see also 

### Marsh

### & McLennan Cos.

### v. United 

### States,302 F.3d 1369, 

### 137213 (Fed.

### Cir. 2002) (describing the interaction between 

### 26 U.S.C. 

### g 6611 and 

### 26 C.F.R. 

### $ 301.6611-1). Relevant

### to Plaintiffs situation is section

### O ofthat regulation that provides:
Refund 

### of overpayment. 

### No interest shall be allowed on any overpayment 

### of tax imposed by subtitle 

### A ofthe Code

### if such overpayment is 

### refunded- 

## (l) In the case 

### of a 

### retum 

### filed on 

### or before

### the last date prescribed 

### for filing the retum 

### ofsuch tax (determined without regardto any extension

### of time for 

### filing such return), 

### within 45 days after such last date, or (2) 

### After December 17,1966, in the case

### ofa retum 

### filed after the last day prescribed 

### for 

### filing the retum, 

### within 45 daysafter the date on which the retum isfiled.

oSection (g) defines the interest period:

Period for which interest allowable in caseof 

### refunds. 

### If an overpayment of tax is refunded, interest 

### shall be 

### allowed

### fromthe date

### of the overpayment

### to a date determined 

### by the 

### district director 

### or the director 

### of the regional service center, 

### which shall be not more than 30 days 

### prior to the date

### of the refund 

### check. The acceptance 

### of a refund check shall not deprive thetaxpayer 

### of the right to make a 

### claim

### for any additional overpayment and interest thereon, provided the

### claim is made 

### within the applicable period 

### of 

### limitation. However, 

### if ataxpayer does not accept a refund check, 

### no additional interest onthe amount

### of the ovemavment included 

### in such check shall be allowed.
26 C.F.R. g 301.6611-1(g).



# ltHowever, 

### in the case

### of any overpayment 

### of tax by an 

### individual (other than an estate 

### or trust and other than 

### a nonresident 

### alien individual) 

### for a taxable year beginning 

## in 1974,

### "60 days" shall be substituted

### for "45 days" each place 

### it appears inthis paragraph.

26

### c.F.R. $ 301.6611-1(i). 

### Plaintifftimely filed his 2007 tax retum onthe 

### "last date"

### for

### filing that retum:

### April 15, 

### 2008. Compl.

# I l; see also 26 C.F.R. $

### 301.6611-1(jX1). Interest would be allowed, therefore, 

## if the overpayment 

### was 

### not refunded 

### within sixty days, 

### i.e., June 14,

### 2008. Since 

### the IRS admitted 

### to losing 

### Plaintiff s 2007 tax retum, 

### the IRS unquestionably missed

### that sixty-day deadline. Compl. 

### Ex. 

### I (8/5/08 Letter

### fiom IRS to Mark 

### Hill).
Instead,the IRS mailed thetax refund on June 5,

### 2009. Gov't Resp. 

### Ex. 

### I at

### A-2. Thus, pursuant

### to section 301.6611-1(g), 

### Plaintiff 

### is owed interest 

### from the date

### of overpayment

### April |5, 2008, through at least 

### thirty days 

### prior to the date

### of the refund 

### check-May 6, 2009, 

### which equals 

### 386 days, 

### excluding 

### the end

### date. And, 

### in fact, the June

### 5, 2009

### tax refund included interest 

### of $6.46 onthe 

### initial refund 

### of $1,176.00, that seemingly reflects interest 

### for this 386-day

### period. Gov't Resp. 

### Ex.

## I atA-2. Therefore, 

### Plaintiff has already received the interest

### to which he 

### is entitled under the Internal Revenue Code, and reissuance 

### of Plaintiffs refund check pursuantto 3 1U.S.C. $ 3343

### will necessarily include the interest 

### Plaintiff is due. 

## In arguing 

### that Section 

### 3343 specifically precludes 

### the payment 

## of interest for replacement checks, the Govemment fails to acknowledge thatthis is not theonly statute at issue 

### in this case. The Govemment 

### is conect that, under Section 3343, ataxpayer 

### is not entitled to interest on a reissued 

### check. see 31

### u.s.c. $ 3343 

### ("The secretary 

### of the Treasury shall pay 

### from the [check Forgery Insurance] 

### Fund



## . . . the amount 

### of the check 

### without interestf.)" (emphasis 

### added)). Section 3343 generally applies

### to all lost 

### or stolen checks, regardless 

### of circumstance or 

### originating agency. Id. (requiring only that the check be "drawn on theTreasury or a depositary designated by the 

### secretary). But, section 3343 does not 

### prohibit the IRS from awarding interest, pursuant 

### to other statutes 

### or court orders, and

### the Govemment cites 

### to no authority tothe 

### contrary. Gov't Resp. 

### 4.7 And,,theJune 18,2012 

### complaint makes 

### it clearthat 

### Plaintiff is pursuing atax refund claim under 28 

### u.S.c. $ 1346, 

### in addition to 

### relief pursuant to 31 

### U.S.C. $

### 3343. Nevertheless, 

### for the reasons discussed above, when 

### Plaintiff receives the reissued check, he

### will be receiving interest therein, pursuant to 26 

### c.F.R. $ 301.6611-1. To the 

### extentthat 

### Plaintiff believes 

### he 

### is entitled

### to interest subsequent 

### to May 

### 6, 2009, 

### the court construes 26 C.F.R. g 301.6611-1(g) as precluding such 

### relief. See26 C.F.R. g 301.6611-1(g) 

## ("lf an overpayment

## of tax 

## is refunded, interest 

### shall 

### be allowed 

### from the date

## of the overpayment 

### to a date determined 

### by the

### district director 

### or the director 

### of the regional service



### ' The Govemment's citation 

### to 

### Clark,206 F. Supp. 

### 2d 954, 

### is inelevant, becatse 

### Clark did not involve a

### claim 

### for interest, but 

### only a request

### for a replacement check and related 

### tort allegations. see 

### Clark,206 F. supp. 

### 2dat956 (discussing 

## 3l u.s.c. g 33a3); seealso 

### clark, 326 F.3d'

### at 912 

## n.\ (noting 

### only that g 3343 

### allows 

### "the secretary 

### of the Treasury

### to issue replacement checks, without interest").



### l2center, v)hich 

### shall be not more than 30 days

### prior to the date

### of the refund check." (emphasis

added)).

### In other words, since 

### Plaintiff

## will receive 

### the 

### tax overpayment 

### with interest, 

### in the amount of $ 1,1 82.46, no additional interest is due.



# c. Punitive Damages.
In addition to reissuance 

### of the 2007 tax refund check due him, 

### Plaintiff seeks $ I ,182.46 in punitive damages pursuant to

### 3l U.S.C. $

### 3343. Compl. at

### zt-5. Section 3343, however, does not provide for 

### punitive damages. See 31 U.S.C. $ 3343(b) 

### (allowing only for payment from the Check Forgery Insurance Fund 

### to replace stolen Govemment-issued 

### checks). And 

### Plaintiff has identified no other independent basis 

### to allowfor the award 

### of punitive damages. To the extent thatthe June 

### 18,2012 Complaint alleges tortious actions onthe part 

### of the Govemment 

### in the misappropriation 

## of Plaintiffs 2007 Federal 

### income

### tax refund, 

### the United states 

### court of Federal Claims does not have

### jurisdiction to hear claims underthe Federal

### Tort Claims

### Act. See 

### 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1346(b)(1) 

### (granting exclusive

### jurisdiction 

### to federal 

### district courts

### to hear

### tort claims against

### the 

### united States). Moreover, 

### the Federal 

## rort claims

### Act does 

### not waive sovereign 

### immunity 

### for "[a]ny claim arising 

### in respect 

### of the assessment 

### or collection 

### of any 

### tax." 28 U.S.C. $2680(c); seealsoAetna Cas. 

## & Sur. Co.v. united 

### States,7l F.3d 475. 477_79 (2d

## cir. 1995) (holding that payment 

### ofa retund 

### falls

### within g

### 26s0(c)). Therefore, 

### plaintiffs request for punitive damages is denied.



# d, The Offset.

The Govemment argues that, 

### if Plaintiff has a

### qualifying debt, payment

### from the check 

### Forgery Insurance 

### Fund 

### or payment 

### resulting 

### fromjudgment 

### of the 

### united states 

### court 

### of Federal 

### claims "must be subject 

### to offset under theTreasury 

### offset program." Gov't Resp. 6. 

### The Government, 

### however, 

### did not

## file a counterclaim 

## in this 

### case. And 

## to the court's knowledge, has not

### filed an action 

### for anoffset in another case. Therefore, 

### Plaintiff s request 

### for a declaratory judgment 

### is not ripe and a declaratory judgment onthis issuewould consiitute an impermissible advisory 

### opinion because, at present, there 

### is no "case 

### or controversy', as

### to the 

### offset. ,See United 

### Pub. 

### Ilorks of

### Am. (C.t.O.) v. 

### Mitchett,330 U.S. 75,

### tt6 (1947) (.,It is clear that the declaratory judgment procedure is available 

### in the federal courts 

### only in cases 

### involving actual controversies and may not be used 

### to obtain an advisory opinion 

### in a controversy not yet 

### arisen."). 

## If the Government 

### withholds payment, pursuant

### to the Treasury 

### offset irogram, Plaintiff may

### file acomplaint 

### inthe appropriate venue atthattime. 

# IV. CONCLUSION,


### For these reasons, 

### Plaintiffs December 

### 6,2013 Motion For Summary Judgment is granted-in-part and denied-in-part. The Govemment is orderedto issue a check in the amount

### of $1,182.46, pursuantto 31 U.S.C. $ 3343.

SUSAN G. 

### BRADEN 

### IT IS SO 

### ORDERED.



### l3