Court Opinion

ID: 9381412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 20:01:39.277336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:32.343086
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                           No. 22-1828
                                      Filed: March 22, 2023

 CLAYTON WILLIAMS,

                     Plaintiff,

 v.

 THE UNITED STATES,

                     Defendant.

Clayton Williams, Daytona Beach, Florida, pro se.

Anthony M. Cognasi, Trial Attorney, David I. Pincus, Of Counsel, Chief, Tax Division, Court of
Federal Claims Section, David A. Hubbert, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Defendant.

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

TAPP, Judge.

        Pro se plaintiff, Clayton Williams Jr. (“Mr. Williams”), brought this tax suit asserting that
the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) failed to issue his Economic Impact Payments (“EIPs”)
pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act, Pub. L. No.
116–136, 134 Stat. 335 (March 27, 2020) (codified at 26 U.S.C. § 6428). (Compl. at 1–2, ECF
No. 1). The United States moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that
because the IRS has already issued Mr. Williams’s EIPs there is no live claim or controversy for
this Court to resolve. (Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 11). Mr. Williams has not filed a response, thus the
United States’ Motion is uncontroverted. Accordingly, Mr. Williams’ Complaint must be
DISMISSED AS MOOT.

        In response to the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress enacted the
CARES Act, providing eligible individuals with tax credits up to $1,200, and an additional $500
for each qualifying child. 26 U.S.C. § 6428. Because tax credits under the CARES Act were
treated as an “advance refund,” qualified individuals received the tax credit directly as an EIP.
§ 6428(f). Subsequently, on December 20, 2020, Congress enacted the COVID-related Tax-
Relief Act, which provided eligible individuals an additional refund of up to $600 per qualifying
individual and $600 for each qualifying child. Pub. L. No. 116-260, § 272(a), 134 Stat. 1182,
1965-71 (codified as amended at 26 U.S.C. § 6428A). Finally, on March 11, 2021, Congress
enacted the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, entitling eligible individuals to an additional tax
credit up to $1,400 plus an additional $1,400 rebate for each qualifying child. Pub. L. No. 117-2,
§ 9601(a), 135 Stat. 4, 138-42 (codified as amended at 26 U.S.C. § 6428B). Mr. Williams alleges
that the IRS failed to issue his EIPs. 1 (Compl. at 1–2).

        Under RCFC 12(b)(1), the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction rests with
the plaintiff, who must do so by a preponderance of the evidence. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992); Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). Mr. Williams is proceeding pro se, therefore, this Court interprets his pleading more
liberally than it would interpret pleadings prepared by a lawyer. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520-21 (1972). This liberal interpretation, however, does not overcome Mr. Williams’s
responsibility to demonstrate satisfaction of jurisdictional requirements. Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S.
Dep’t of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

        It is well-established that mootness is a jurisdictional question. See, e.g., North Carolina
v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971). Courts are not “empowered to decide moot questions or
abstract propositions.” Id. at 246 (citing United States v. Alaska S.S. Co., 253 U.S. 113, 116
(1920)). Thus, this Court is without power to decide questions “that cannot affect the rights of
litigants” in the case before it. Id. at 246. Such a jurisdictional requirement arises from the
existence of a case or controversy as a prerequisite to the exercise of judicial power. Id. at 246.
The doctrine is “essential if federal courts are to function within their constitutional sphere of
authority.” Id. This Court must resolve questions of mootness before assuming jurisdiction. Id.;
see also Veterans Contracting Grp., Inc. v. United States, 743 F. App’x 439, 441 (Fed. Cir.
2018).

        In considering a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
RCFC 12(b)(1), the Court generally must assume all undisputed facts alleged in the complaint
are true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S.
232, 236 (1974); see also Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 797 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The Court
may, however, also look to extrinsic evidence to determine whether exercising jurisdiction would
be proper. Rocovich v. United States, 933 F.2d 991, 994 (Fed. Cir. 1991), aff’d in relevant part,
Martinez v. United States, 281 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

        Parties may challenge subject matter jurisdiction either by challenging the sufficiency of
the pleading’s allegations or by challenging the factual basis for the Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Watkins, 11 F.3d 1573, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1993). If the
challenge is to the sufficiency of allegations, then the Court must accept the allegations within
the pleading as true. Id. at 1583-84. If, however, the challenge is to the factual basis for the
Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the Court may look beyond the pleadings to resolve the
factual dispute. Id. at 1584 (citing Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 735 n. 4 (1947)).

       The United States asserts that the IRS added tax relief credits of $1,200 and $600 to Mr.
Williams’s 2020 tax refund. (Def.’s Mot., Ex. A). The IRS then mailed a refund check to

1
 While Mr. Williams does not identify which tax years are the basis for his claim, the Court
assumes that Mr. Williams seeks relief for the 2020 and 2021 tax years as all EIPs were issued
during that time. (Def,’s Mot., at 1, ECF No. 11).

                                                  2
Tomoka Correctional Institution (“Tomoka”), a Florida state correctional institution, where Mr.
Williams was incarcerated at the time and, to this Court’s knowledge, where Mr. Williams
presently remains incarcerated. (Id. Exs. B, C). Similarly, the United States argues that the IRS
added a tax relief credit of $1,400 to Mr. Williams’s 2021 tax refund and mailed a refund check
to Tomoka. (Id. Exs. D, E). Copies of the checks provided in the United States’ Motion to
Dismiss show that the Florida Department of Corrections endorsed both checks before depositing
them in an inmate trust account. 2 (Id. Exs. B, E). Thus, the United States asserts that Mr.
Williams has, in fact, received the relief that he seeks from this Court. Mr. Williams’s sole
assertion before this Court is that the IRS wrongfully withheld his CARES Act tax credits.
(Compl. at 3, ECF No. 1). The United States argues that the IRS has, in fact, issued the EIPs Mr.
Williams requests, thus he presents no live case or controversy. (Def.’s Mot. at 4). This challenge
to the factual basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction establishes a dispute as to the
underlying jurisdictional facts. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr., 11 F.3d at 1583-84. Therefore, to
determine whether there is a claim or controversy for the Court to resolve, the Court may review
both the pleadings and extrinsic evidence provided by the parties. As explained below, because
the evidence establishes that the IRS did issue Mr. Williams’s CARES Act tax credits, and
because this is not contested by Mr. Williams, a judgment by this Court would not affect the
rights of the parties before it.

       As to tax year 2020, Mr. Williams filed his Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax
Return, on May 31, 2021. (Def.’s Mot. Ex. A). The undisputed evidence establishes that the IRS
added tax credits in the amounts of $1,200 and $600 to Mr. Williams’s 2020 tax account. (Id.).
The IRS then mailed a refund check in the amount of $1,805.19 to Tomoka. (Id. Ex. B). The
check was endorsed by the Florida Department of Corrections and deposited into an inmate trust
account on June 14, 2021. (Id.). This evidence establishes that the IRS provided Mr. Williams
with the appropriate tax credits for the tax year 2020, and the plaintiff has not challenged this
evidence.

       The same is true for tax year 2021. Mr. Williams filed his Form 1040 for the 2021 tax
year on September 12, 2022. (Def.’s Mot. Ex. D). The IRS added a $1,400 tax credit to Mr.
William’s 2021 tax year account on June 14, 2021. (Id.). A check in that amount was mailed to
Tomoka. (Id. Ex. E). The check was similarly endorsed by the Florida Department of Corrections
and deposited into an inmate trust account on June 23, 2021. (Id.). Mr. Williams has not
challenged these findings and the evidence establishes that the IRS similarly provided Mr.
Williams with the appropriate tax credits for the tax year 2021.

2
  An inmate trust account is an account established by the prison system on behalf of the inmate.
Salter v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 359, 360-61 (2014). The department of corrections acts as a
trustee of the account with the inmate as the beneficiary. Id. Funds are added to the account
through gifts from approved visitors and earnings from prison employment. See Fla. Dep’t of
Corrs., Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Inmate Funds,
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ci/funds.html (last visited Mar. 21, 2023). Funds may be withdrawn to
pay court fees or to purchase items at the prison’s commissary, among other purposes. Id.

                                                3
        In analyzing both the pleadings and the extrinsic evidence provided by the United States,
the Court finds that the IRS did issue Mr. Williams’s EIPs for tax years 2020 and 2021. Mr.
Williams offers nothing to challenge these allegations, let alone to fulfill his burden of
establishing this Court’s jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Because Mr. Williams
has received his sought relief, there is no live claim or controversy between the parties, making
the issue moot, and depriving this Court of jurisdiction. Los Angeles Cnty. v. Davis, 440 U.S.
625, 634 (1979).

        Accordingly, the United States’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED. For the
stated reasons, the matter is DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to
RCFC 12(b)(1). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

       IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                                      David A. Tapp
                                                                   DAVID A. TAPP, Judge

                                                4