Opinion ID: 624219
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Unauthorized Collection Action Claim

Text: Under the Internal Revenue Code, a taxpayer may bring a damages claim against the United States “[i]f, in connection with any collection of Federal tax with respect to a taxpayer, any officer or employee of the [IRS] recklessly or intentionally, or by reason of negligence, disregards any provision of this title, or any regulation promulgated under this title.” 26 U.S.C. § 7433(a)-(b). The action must be brought within two years after the cause of action accrues. Id. § 7433(d)(3). We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Plotkin’s claim that the probation revocation proceedings were an unauthorized collection action, but do so on statute of limitations grounds. See Ironworkers Local Union 68 v. AstraZeneca Pharm., LP, 634 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2011) (explaining that we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, regardless of whether it was relied upon by the district court). 12 Count Three of Plotkin’s complaint alleges that Defendants Leeker, McAdon and Kibort used the probation revocation proceedings to try to circumvent the tax collection procedure set out in the Internal Revenue Code. Even assuming arguendo Count Three states a § 7433 violation, that claim accrued at the latest by June 20, 2006, at the second probation revocation hearing. See Rozar v. Mullis, 85 F.3d 556, 561-62 (11th Cir. 1996) (stating that the general rule under federal law is that a claim accrues and starts the statute of limitations period when the plaintiff knew or should have known that he was injured and who inflicted the injury).3 Plotkin did not file his complaint until June 25, 2008, more than two years after the second probation revocation hearing. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Count Three.