Brown v. United States

Case: 21-1721 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 01/05/2022

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

GEORGE P. BROWN, RUTH HUNT-BROWN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2021-1721

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims

in No. 1:19-cv-00848-LAS, Senior Judge Loren A. Smith.

______________________

Decided: January 5, 2022

______________________

TIFFANY MICHELLE HUNT, Barnes & Hunt, PLLC, Dal-

las, TX, argued for plaintiffs-appellants.

ISAAC B. ROSENBERG, Appellate Section, Tax Division,

United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ar-

gued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BRUCE R.

ELLISEN, DAVID A. HUBBERT.

KEITH FOGG, Tax Clinic of the Legal Services Center of

Harvard Law School, Jamaica Plain, MA, for amicus curiae

The Center for Taxpayer Rights. Also represented by

CARLTON M. SMITH, New York, NY.

Case: 21-1721 Document: 44 Page: 2 Filed: 01/05/2022

2 BROWN v. US

______________________

Before LOURIE, DYK, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

George P. Brown and Ruth Hunt-Brown appeal from

the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims

(the “Claims Court”) dismissing their tax refund suit for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Brown v. U.S., 151

Fed. Cl. 530 (2020) (“Decision”). While we disagree that the

court lacked jurisdiction, we nonetheless affirm because

the court was correct that the Browns failed to prove that

their claim for refund was duly filed.

BACKGROUND

The Browns are U.S. citizens and husband and wife. In

the relevant tax years, they lived in Australia and Mr.

Brown worked for the Raytheon Company.

In October 2018, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”)

received amended returns for the Browns for 2015 and

2017. These returns were prepared and signed by John

Anthony Castro, their attorney, but they were not accom-

panied by any powers of attorney. The two returns claimed

the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion.

In January 2019, the Browns submitted a second

amended return for 2015. Like their first amended return

for that year, this return was prepared and signed by Mr.

Castro and claimed the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion.

It also did not append any powers of attorney. The returns

sought refunds of $7,636 for 2015 and $5,061 for 2017.

In April 2019, the Browns received a decision letter

from the IRS disallowing the Browns’ refund claims for

2015 and 2017. In this letter, the IRS explained that its

records “show[ed] that, as an employee of Raytheon . . . liv-

ing and working in Australia, [Mr. Brown] may have en-

tered into a closing agreement . . . irrevocably waiving [the

Case: 21-1721 Document: 44 Page: 3 Filed: 01/05/2022

BROWN v. US 3

Browns’] rights to claim the Foreign Earned Income [Ex-

clusion] under [I.R.C.] section 911(a).” J.A. 350. In June

2019, the Browns filed this refund suit in the Court of Fed-

eral Claims. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6532 and § 7422(a), a suit

may be brought in the Claims Court after an administra-

tive claim has been filed and either the taxpayer waited six

months before filing suit or the IRS took final action on the

claim. Neither party seems to dispute that the Browns’

claim was properly before the Claims Court if it was “duly

filed.”

The government filed an answer stating that the

Browns’ allegations were largely conclusory and then

moved to dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter juris-

diction. The government argued that the Browns had not

“duly filed” their administrative refund claims in accord-

ance with 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a)’s mandate because they had

not personally signed and verified their amended returns

or properly authorized an agent to execute their returns.

The Browns responded that even if they had not “duly

filed” their refund clams, the IRS had waived the taxpayer

signature and verification requirements by processing

their refund claims, despite the claims’ defects. The

Browns added that the signature and verification require-

ments are regulatory conditions, which the Supreme Court

has deemed waivable, instead of unwaivable statutory con-

ditions.

The Claims Court agreed with the government and dis-

missed the Browns’ suit for lack of subject matter jurisdic-

tion. Decision at 531–32. The court first found that the

“duly filed” requirement in § 7422(a) is jurisdictional. Id.

at 533–34. It then found that the Browns’ claims did not

meet the requirements for a claim to be “duly filed.” Id.

The Claims Court also rejected the Browns’ waiver ar-

gument. Id. at 534–36. The court held that waiver does

not apply to statutory requirements and that several

Case: 21-1721 Document: 44 Page: 4 Filed: 01/05/2022

4 BROWN v. US

statutes require individual taxpayers to sign and verify

their own refund claims. Id.

Following the Claims Court’s judgment, the Browns

timely appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION

We review the Claims Court’s legal determinations de

novo and its factual findings for clear error. Palladian

Partners, Inc. v. United States, 783 F.3d 1243, 1252 (Fed.

Cir. 2015).

The Browns argue that the Claims Court erred in find-

ing § 7422(a) to be jurisdictional. They assert that

§ 7422(a) does not mention the term “jurisdiction” and that

Congress has not made a clear statement that the signa-

ture and verification requirements are jurisdictional. The

government responds that the Supreme Court interpreted

§ 7422(a) as jurisdictional in United States v. Dalm, 494

U.S. 596, 609–10 (1990). The government adds that even

if the Browns are correct about § 7422(a) being non-juris-

dictional, the Claims Court’s error is harmless and that the

dismissal may simply be found pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of

the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) for fail-

ure to state a claim rather than Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

We conclude that the Claims Court erred in holding

that the Browns’ claim for refund was jurisdictional, but

that it was harmless error because the Browns failed to

meet the “duly filed” requirement. We address jurisdiction

first.

Section 7422(a) states that:

No suit or proceeding shall be maintained . . . until

a claim for refund . . . has been duly filed with the

Secretary, according to the provisions of law in that

Case: 21-1721 Document: 44 Page: 5 Filed: 01/05/2022

BROWN v. US 5

regard, and the regulations of the Secretary estab-

lished in pursuance thereof.”

The Supreme Court has interpreted the filing require-

ment in § 7422(a) as a jurisdictional limitation in Dalm,

494 U.S. at 609–10. It reasoned that filing for a tax refund

within the time limits of the statute of limitations was ju-

risdictional. Id. However, the adequacy of the filing, at

issue here, is different from the fact of filing. The Browns

did make a claim for refund within the statutory time pe-

riod, and the Supreme Court in Dalm did not rule that

meeting the requirement of being “duly filed” was jurisdic-

tional.

To be sure, this court has held that a taxpayer’s failure

to comply with other § 7422(a) requirements (including

those implemented by regulation) generally is jurisdic-

tional. See, e.g., Stephens v. United States, 884 F.3d 1151,

1156 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Waltner v. United States, 679 F.3d

1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012). But that jurisdictional char-

acterization cannot be reconciled with the Supreme Court’s

decision in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control

Components, Inc., where the Court clarified that so-called

“statutory standing” defects—i.e., whether a party can sue

under a given statute—do not implicate a court’s subject

matter jurisdiction. 572 U.S. 118, 128 & n.4 (2014).

We conclude that the “duly filed” requirement in

§ 7422(a) is more akin to a claims-processing rule than a

jurisdictional requirement. See Gillespie v. United States,

670 F. App’x 393, 395 (7th Cir. 2016) (discussing that cer-

tain prerequisites in § 7422(a) may be claims-processing

rules rather than jurisdictional requirements). Thus, for

the reasons below, we will affirm the Claims Court’s dis-

missal of the Browns’ suit, but do so pursuant to RCFC

12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted rather than RCFC 12(b)(1) for lack of subject mat-

ter jurisdiction.

Case: 21-1721 Document: 44 Page: 6 Filed: 01/05/2022

6 BROWN v. US

Turning to the merits, we agree with the Claims

Court’s conclusion that the Browns did not “duly file” their

refund claim in accordance with § 7422(a). To be “duly

filed” a claim:

[M]ust set forth in detail each ground upon which

a credit or refund is claimed and facts sufficient to

apprise the Commissioner of the exact basis

thereof. The statement of the grounds and

facts must be verified by a written declaration that

it is made under the penalties of perjury. A claim

which does not comply with this paragraph will not

be considered for any purpose as a claim for refund

or credit.

Treas. Reg. § 301.6402-2(b)(1) (emphasis added). The tax-

payer signature requirement emphasized above may be ex-

cepted “when a legal representative certifies the claim and

attaches evidence of a valid power of attorney.” Gregory v.

United States, 149 Fed. Cl. 719, 723 (2020). The Browns

admit that they neither signed their refund claims nor ten-

dered powers of attorney to permit their tax preparer to

sign the claims on their behalf. Instead, the Browns argue

that the signature and verification requirements are regu-

latory provisions instead of statutory provisions and are

therefore subject to waiver by the Secretary. The Browns

further contend that the Secretary waived these require-

ments in this instance.

In Angelus Milling, the Supreme Court held that the

IRS cannot waive “explicit statutory requirements” but

that it may choose to waive regulatory requirements. An-

gelus Milling Co. v. Commissioner, 325 U.S. 293, 296–97

(1945). The Court reasoned that Congressional mandates,

unlike regulations, “must be observed and are beyond the

dispensing power of Treasury officials.” Id. at 296.

Title 26, Section 6061(a) of the U.S. Code provides that

“any return . . . or other document required to be made un-

der any provision of the internal revenue laws or

Case: 21-1721 Document: 44 Page: 7 Filed: 01/05/2022

BROWN v. US 7

regulations shall be signed in accordance with forms or reg-

ulations prescribed by the Secretary.” Title 26, Section

6065 of the U.S. Code similarly commands that “[e]xcept as

otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return . . . or

other document required to be made under any provision

of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall contain or

be verified by a written declaration that it is made under

the penalties of perjury.”

An income tax refund claim triggers these statutory

commands because it is simultaneously a “return” and a

“document required to be made . . . under the internal rev-

enue laws or regulations.” Sections 6061(a) and 6065 thus

impose a default rule that individual taxpayers must per-

sonally sign and verify their income tax refund claims.

Otherwise, the documents are invalid or of no legal effect.

See Diamond v. United States, 107 Fed. Cl. 702, 705 (2012)

(“To constitute a valid claim for refund, . . . the taxpayer

must execute the return by signing it under penalty of per-

jury.”), aff’d on other grounds, 530 F. App’x 943 (Fed. Cir.

2013) (per curiam); accord Selgas v. Commissioner, 475

F.3d 697, 700–01 (5th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he fact that [the re-

turns] were unsigned deprives them of legal effect.”) (ap-

plying §§ 6061(a) and 6065).

To be sure, § 6061(a) gives the Secretary the authority

to prescribe how individual taxpayers may satisfy the stat-

ute’s requirement. Similarly, § 6065 gives the Secretary

discretion to suspend the verification requirement in cer-

tain cases. However, these statutes’ implementing regula-

tions echo the statutory default rule. See Treas. Reg.

§§ 1.6012-1(a)(5), 301.6402(e). They presumptively require

individual taxpayers to execute their own refund claims

and returns. See id. And, by regulation, the person who

signs a return or other document must also verify it. See

Treas. Reg. § 1.6065-1(a). Put differently, a taxpayer must

satisfy the statutory default rule or else comply strictly

with the implementing regulations. If they do neither, the

document is effectively unsigned and unverified under

Case: 21-1721 Document: 44 Page: 8 Filed: 01/05/2022

8 BROWN v. US

§§ 6061(a) and 6065 and the taxpayer has not “duly filed”

the refund claim.

Because the taxpayer signature and verification re-

quirements derive from statute, the IRS cannot waive

those requirements. See Angelus Milling, 325 U.S. at 296.

Therefore, the IRS had no authority to accept the Browns’

improperly executed refund claims.

Whatever other requirements may exist to render a re-

turn “duly filed” we cannot say. We deal here only with the

facts presented to us, relating to a return that is both un-

signed by the taxpayers and not accompanied by a power

of attorney.

In the alternative, even if the taxpayer signature and

verification requirements were regulatory provisions, the

Browns wrongly presume that Angelus Milling’s waiver ap-

plies to this case. Angelus Milling states that the waiver

doctrine applies when (1) there is clear evidence that the

Commissioner understood the claim that was made, even

though there was a departure in form in the submission,

(2) it is unmistakable that the Commissioner dispensed

with the formal requirements and examined the claim, and

(3) the Commissioner took action upon the claim. Angelus

Milling, 325 U.S. at 297–98. Here, there is no evidence

that the IRS knew that the Browns had not personally

signed their refund claims or verified their accuracy under

the penalty of perjury. Nothing in the Browns’ refund

claims hinted that someone else had executed them, and

Castro’s signature on the claims is in fact illegible, see, e.g.,

J.A. 185. In addition, nothing in the April 2019 letter from

the IRS to the Browns mentioned that the IRS was aware

that the Browns had not personally signed or verified their

refund claims. The record does not indicate that the Com-

missioner dispensed with the requirements even though it

examined the claim. Because prongs (1) and (2) of the An-

gelus Milling waiver test are not satisfied, the Browns are

Case: 21-1721 Document: 44 Page: 9 Filed: 01/05/2022

BROWN v. US 9

incorrect to presume that the signature and verification re-

quirements were waived.

In sum, the Claims Court properly dismissed the

Browns’ suit because the Browns did not comply with the

“duly filed” requirement in § 7422(a).

CONCLUSION

We have considered the Browns’ remaining arguments,

but we find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the decision

of the Claims Court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED