# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 15-1116T (Filed: November 12, 2015) NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CARY A. ZOLMAN,

Pro SePlaintiff,

v.
THE UNITED STATES,

Def endant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDEROF DISMISSAL

The court isin receipt of the complaint filed on October 5, 2015 by pro se plaintiff Cary Zolman.1

### Mr. Zolman asserts that he is entitled to$894,286.59 pluslegalfees as damages for alleged fraud, felony theft, and due process violations arising from the Internal Revenue Service’s (“IRS”) collection of taxes. Mr. Zolman also asserts that he is
a“legal non tax payer (American National).” Compl. 1.
A plaintiff has the burden of establishing the court’s subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., Estes Express Lines v. United States, 739 F.3d 689, 692 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Although a pro se plaintiff is held to less stringent pleading standards, the plaintiff must still demonstrate that the court has jurisdiction to hear their claim.See, e.g., Matthews v. United States, 750 F.3d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
“[T]his court’s jurisdiction under the Internal Revenue Code is generally limited to the adjudication of tax refund suits.” Dawveed v. United States, No. 14-247, 2014 WL 1499145, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 15, 2014) (citing 26 U.S.C. § 7422); see also Cooper v.

1

### Mr. Zolmanalso filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Mr. Zolman’s motion to proceed in forma pauperisisGRANTEDfor thelimitedpurpose of filing the complaint.



# ORIGINAL FILED
NOV 12 2015 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

### United States, 123 Fed. 

### cl.226 (2015) 

### ("The [Intemal Revenue 

### code] does not authorize

taxpayers 

### to challenge the 

### IRS's imposition of a 

### lery in the 

### court of Federal 

### claims.,, (citing 26 U.S.C. g$

### 6330-31). In atax retund suit, ,.the taxpayer must 

### first 

### (t) pay the 

### full amount of taxes 

### in dispute,

. . . 

### (2) 

### file a

### timely claim for refund 

### with the IRS, 26 

### u.s.c. $ 7422, and 

### (3) 

### file a

### timely complaint subsequent to the submission 

### of the 

### claim for a refund, 26 

### U.S.C. $

### 6532." Rogers 

### v. United States, 66 F.

### App,x 195, 198 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2003) (per 

### curiam). Mr. Zolman's 

### filings make clear that he 

### did not 

### file a

### timely claim for a refund 

### with the 

### IRS. See Compl. 

### Ex. 4 (stamped 

### ,,Exhibit 

### B,,). Therefore, 

### Mr. Zolman's complaint fails to meet the

### jurisdictional prerequisites 

### for atax refund 

### claim. See also 

### Diamond v. 

### United States, 603 

### F. 

### App'x947,950 (Fed. 

### Cir. Feb. 10, 2015) (per 

### curiam) 

### (citing Chicago 

### Milwaukee Com. 

### y-UuiIed States, 40 

### F.3d 373,31-4 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1994)).



### Mr. Zolman's other claims must also be dismissed

### for lack 

### ofjurisdiction. The Tucker 

### Act, 28 

### U.S.C. g 1491, grants this court 

### 'Jurisdiction to 

### renderjudgment upon any 

### claim against the 

### United States founded either upon the 

### Constitution, or any

### Act oI' Congress or any regulation 

### ofan 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. 

### g 1a91(a)(1) (emphasis 

### added). However, the Tucker 

### Act does not create substantive 

### rights; 

### it only waives sovereign 

### immunity for claims premised
on other sources

### of law that 

### "can

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

### for the damages 

### sustained." Jan's 

### Helicopter Serv., Inc. 

### v. 

### FAA, 525 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2008) 

### (quoting United States

### v. Mitchell

, 463 U.S. 206, 216-17 

### (1983)). Therefore, this court lacks 

### jurisdiction to hear 

### Mr. Zolman's criminal or tort 

### claims, In addition, claims 

### for damages 

### resulting from unauthorized 

### collection actions or 

### failure to release a lien must be

### filed in afederal 

### district 

### court. See 26 U.S.C. $$ 7432-33; 

### Ledford v. United States,297 

### F.3d1378, 1382 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2002) (per curiam). 

### Finally, this court lacks 

### jurisdiction to hear 

### Mr. Zolman's due process claim because 

### "[t]he law is

### well settled that the Due Process clauses 

### ofboth the 

### Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not mandate the payment of money and thus do not 

### provide a cause

## of action under the Tucker 

## Act." Smith v. 

### United States, 709 

### F.3d I I 14, 1116 (Fed. 

### Cir. (2013) 

### (citing LeBlanc v. United States, 50 

### F.3d 1025,1028 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995)).
Therefore, because 

### this court lacks 

### iurisdiction, 

### Mr. Zolman's comolaint is 

### DISMISSED. The 

### Clerk is directed to enter

### judgment accordingly.


### IT IS SO 

### ORDERED.

Judge 

### FIRESTONE