Source: http://dc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20070718_0000565.DDC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-10-28 17:49:20
Document Index: 215547188

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7433', '§ 7433', '§ 7433', '§ 7433', '§ 7433', '§ 1361', '§ 1651', '§ 7433', '§ 301', '§ 301', '§ 301', '§ 301', '§ 7421', '§ 7421']

BROOKS ANDERSON & HOLLY ANDERSON, PLAINTIFFS,v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT.
Plaintiffs Brooks and Holly Anderson filed a pro se Complaint against the United States alleging that the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), through its "principals, officers, agents, and/or employees," violated 26 U.S.C. § 7433 by arbitrarily and capriciously abusing its discretion. Compl. at 4, Count 1. Plaintiffs allege 41 separate counts for alleged violations of various sections of the Internal Revenue Code and the Code of Federal Regulations. Compl. at 18. This is one of numerous boilerplate complaints that have recently been filed in the this Court complaining of disclosure violations under § 7433. See, e.g., Gaines v. United States, 424 F. Supp. 2d 219, 221 (D.D.C. 2006) (collecting cases); Ross v. United States, 460 F. Supp. 2d 139, 141 (D.D.C. 2006) (dozens of individuals have filed similar complaints in a pro se capacity in the D.C. District Court). Plaintiffs seek monetary damages amounting to $10,000 per "disregard with intent to defeat the provisions" of the Internal Revenue Code. Compl. at 19, Remedy ¶ 1. Plaintiffs also seek "replevin" of "any and all property taken" from them without due process of law, further damages as the court sees as proper, and an injunction to prevent defendants from "further acting in disregard of law or regulation." Id., ¶¶ 2-4.
The Government now moves to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or alternatively, that Plaintiffs have failed to state a damages claim on which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Def.'s Mot. at 1. The Court will grant the Government's motion and will dismiss Plaintiffs' damages claim under Rule 12(b)(6) because Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, a prerequisite to a civil suit for damages under 26 U.S.C. § 7433, and will dismiss Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7433, which provides a cause of action to taxpayers for certain violations of Title 26 of the U.S. Code. Compl. ¶ 1. That statute provides:
26 U.S.C. § 7433(a). Plaintiffs also invoke this Court's jurisdiction pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (28 U.S.C. § 1361) and the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651). Compl. at 4, ¶¶ 2, 3. Plaintiffs then allege a litany of 41 counts against the Government, the crux of which is that the IRS disregarded and continues to disregard certain sections of the IRS Code while engaged in collection activity.
Second, Section 7433 allows suits for damages against the United States; however, it explicitly requires that "[a] judgment for damages shall not be awarded . . . unless the court determines that the plaintiff has exhausted the administrative remedies available to such plaintiff within the Internal Revenue Service." Id. § 7433(d)(1). The IRS, in turn, has promulgated regulations that mandate that damages actions under Section 7433 "may not be maintained unless the taxpayer has filed an administrative claim." 26 C.F.R. § 301.7433-1(e). A plaintiff claiming actual, direct economic damages as in this case must submit an administrative claim "in writing to the Area Director, Attn: Compliance Technical Support Manager of the area in which the taxpayer currently resides," and include (1) the taxpayer's name and contact information, (2) the grounds for the claim, (3) a description of the injuries incurred by the taxpayer, (4) the dollar amount of the claim, and (5) the signature of the taxpayer or duly authorized representative. 26 C.F.R. § 301.7433-1(e)(1), (2). The regulations also make clear that the taxpayer should include any supporting documentation, evidence, and correspondence with the IRS. Id. Until the IRS rules on a properly filed claim, or six months pass without a ruling, no civil action for damages will lie. 26 C.F.R. § 301.7433-1(d), (e)(2)); see also Gaines, 424 F. Supp. 2d at 221-22; Turner v. United States, 429 F. Supp. 2d 149, 151 (D.D.C. 2006).
Plaintiffs do not allege in their Complaint or Opposition to the Government's Motion to Dismiss that they filed the appropriate administrative claim in accordance with 26 C.F.R. § 301.7433-1(e).*fn1 Pursuing administrative remedies is an element of the claim. Therefore, the burden is on Plaintiffs to present some non-conclusory factual allegations that they exhausted their administrative remedies. Twombly, 127 S. Ct at 1965. Because Plaintiffs have not done so, the Court must dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim under Section 7433.*fn2
26 U.S.C. § 7421(a); see also Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 102-03 (2004). As the Supreme Court has noted, "[t]he object of § 7421(a) is to withdraw jurisdiction from the state and federal courts to entertain suits seeking injunctions prohibiting the collection of federal taxes." See Enochs v. Williams Packaging & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 5 (1962). The AIA serves two purposes: "It responds to the Government's need to assess and collect taxes as expeditiously as possible with a minimum of pre-enforcement judicial interference; and it require[s] that the legal right to the disputed sums be determined in a suit for refund." Hibbs, 542 U.S. at 103 (citations and internal quotations omitted). A district court "must dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction any suit that does not fall within one of the exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act." Gardner v. United States, 211 F.3d 1305, 1311 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
In addition to the statutory exceptions, there are two narrow judicially created exceptions to the AIA: (1) where the plaintiff has no "alternative legal way to challenge the validity of a tax;"and (2) where the taxpayer is certain to succeed on the merits and the collection would cause irreparable harm. See South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367, 373 (1984); Enochs, 370 U.S. at 7 (1962); Nat'l Taxpayers Union v. United States, 68 F.3d 1428, 1436 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (quoting Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-44 (1971) ("The basic doctrine of equity jurisprudence [is] that courts of equity should not act . . . when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief.")).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant [Dkt. #5] the Government's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' damages claims for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and their claim for injunctive relief for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). A memorializing order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.