Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Mark Louis Sanders, Petitioner v. United States

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

fHuiteb States Court of Appeals

for tJje Jfeberaf Circuit

MARK LOUIS SANDERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

2020-1032

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims

in No. l:19-cv-01138-EJD, Senior Judge Edward J.

Damich.

Decided: April 7, 2020

Mark Louis Sanders, Trafford, PA, pro se.

RICHARD L. Parker, Tax Division, United States De­

partment of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appel­

lee. Also represented by BRUCE R. ELLISEN, RICHARD E.

ZUCKERMAN.

Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYKand O’MALLEY, Circuit

Judges.

APPENDIX A

2

SANDERS V. UNITED STATES

Per Curiam.

Mark Louis Sanders appeals an order from the Court

of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his com­

plaint. We affirm.

Background

On August 5, 2019, Sanders filed a complaint in the

Claims Court alleging that the United States had imposed

taxes on him without jurisdiction. On September 10, 2019,

the Claims Court, interpreting Sanders’ complaint as a tax

refund suit, dismissed Sanders’ complaint for failing to al­

lege facts necessary to establish the Claims Court’s tax re­

fund jurisdiction. Sanders filed this timely appeal. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

Discussion

“We review the Claims Court’s decision to dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction de novo.” Campbell v. United States,

932 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “We may affirm the

[Claims Court’s] dismissal on any ground supported by the

record.” Wyandot Nation v. United States, 858 F.3d 1392,

1397 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

The Claims Court “can take cognizance only of those

[claims] which by the terms of some act of Congress are

committed to it.” Hercules Inc. u. United States, 516 U.S.

417, 423 (1996) (alteration in original) (quoting Thurston

v. United States, 232 U.S. 469, 475 (1914)). On appeal,

Sanders argues that this is not a tax suit. However, Sand­

ers points to no other statute that would confer jurisdiction

to the Claims Court over his action.

There is no jurisdiction over this action as a tax refund

suit. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1), “[a] taxpayer seeking a

refund of taxes erroneously or unlawfully assessed or col­

lected may bring an action against the Government either

in United States district court or in the United States

Court of Federal Claims.” United States u. Clintwood

SANDERS V. UNITED STATES

3

Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. 1, 4 (2008). However, to

bring a suit for illegally collected taxes, the taxpayer seek­

ing a refund must “comply with tax refund procedures set

forth in the [Internal Revenue] Code.” Id. “These princi­

ples [also] are fully applicable to claims of unconstitutional

taxation.” Id. at 9.

On this record, we see no error in the district court’s

finding that Sanders has not alleged “any evidence that he

has pre-paid the principal tax deficiency—the first prereq­

uisite to tax-refund jurisdiction.” Sanders v. United States,

145 Fed. Cl. 37, 38 (2019) (citing Shore v. United States,

9 F.3d 1524, 1527 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).

The Claims Court correctly found that “Sanders has

not established tax refund jurisdiction, or any other basis

for his suit.” Id. We conclude that the Claims Court’s dis­

missal of Sanders’ complaint must be

AFFIRMED

*

®mteb States Court ot appeals

for tf)e Jfeberal Circuit

MARK LOUIS SANDERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

2020-1032

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims

in No. l:19-cv-01138-EJD, Senior Judge Edward J.

Damich.

JUDGMENT

THIS Cause having been considered, it is

' Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED

Entered By Order Of The Court

April 7. 2020

Is/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

3Jtt tl)t ®tuteb states? Court of jfpbetal Claims

No. 19-1138T

(Filed: September 10,2019)

MARK LOUIS SANDERS,

Plaintiff,

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff, Mark Louis Sanders, acting pro se, filed a Complaint with

this Court alleging that the Defendant, the United States, imposed taxes on him without

jurisdiction between years 1977 and 2018.1 Compl., ECF No. 1. In support, Plaintiff attached an

Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction from the United States Tax Court.2 See Compl., Ex.

A.

Under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C, § 1491, the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction

over tax refund suits if certain prerequisites are met.3 See United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn

Mining Co,, 553 U.S. 1,4 (2008). First, a plaintiff must satisfy the full payment rule, which

requires that the principal tax deficiency be paid in full. See Shore v. United States, 9 F,3d

1524,1526-27 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Flora v. United States, 357 U.S, 63, 68 (1958). Second,

4he.plaintiffmustrtimely^ile^4ax^efvmd=daim-with-,the-I.RS..- -5,a&;264JvSX. § 7422(a) (“(njo-suit-:~—

or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax

alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected . , , until a claim for refund or

l

This Complaint is part of a recent trend of similar cases filed by individuals challenging

the jurisdiction of the IRS based, in part, on petitions previously dismissed by the U.S. Tax

Court. The Court of Federal Claims has received twenty similar complaints from pro se

plaintiffs since November 2018.

2 In addition, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which the Court

denied on August 23, 2019. On August 29,2019, Plaintiff tendered the requisite $400 filing fee.

3 The jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims under the Internal Revenue Code is

generally limited to the adjudication of tax refund suits. Zolman v. United States, No. 15-1116T,

2015 WL 7266624, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 12,2015).

APPENDIX B

/

credit has been duly filed with the Secretary . . .”)• Third, the plaintiff must provide the amount,

date, and place of each payment to be refunded, as well as a copy of the refund claim when filing

suit in the Court of Federal Claims. RCFC 9(m). Unless a plaintiff satisfies these prerequisites,

the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to hear a tax refund suit.

Although a pro se plaintiffs pleadings are generally held to “less stringent standards”

than those of a professional lawyer, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (requiring

that allegations contained in a pro se complaint be held to “less stringent standards than formal

pleadings drafted by l awyers”), the Court cannot extend this leniency to relieve plaintiffs of their

jurisdictional burden. Kelley v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep'l of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir, 1987).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to dismiss a case if at any time it

-determines that4he-aGti0n-oi-appeaUs2l-frivolous-:onmaliciousT-or-2fails.to_slaten-cl3hnjinJwhi.eh__.

relief may be granted.”

In this case, Mr. Sanders’ Complaint is so irreparably deficient that it fails to state a claim

Upon which relief may be granted. Specifically, Mr, Sanders alleges that the United States

imposed taxes on him without jurisdiction but fails to provide any evidence that he has pre-paid

the principal tax deficiency—the first prerequisite to tax-refund jurisdiction. See generally,

Compl, Instead, Mr. Sanders attached an Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction from the

United States Tax Court, in which the Tax Court dismissed Mr. Sanders’ petition for failing to

establish the jurisdictional prerequisites for bringing a claim in that Court. See Compl,, Exs. A &

B. Such a dismissal cannot serve as the basis for a claim in this Court. As Mr. Sanders has not

established tax refund jurisdiction, or any other basis for his suit, Mr. Sanders has failed to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs case is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to enter

judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

- dwKC.Y B. FIRESTONE

Senior Judge

For

EDWARD J. DAMICH

Senior Judge

2

CT

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

WASHINGTON, DC 20217

MARK LOUIS SANDERS,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

)

v.

) Docket No. 6302-18.

)

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, )

Respondent

)

)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

This case is before the Court on respondent’s Motion To Dismiss for Lack of

Jurisdiction and To Impose a Penalty under I.R.C. section 6673, filed May 21,

2018, on the grounds that: (1) no notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner for

tax years 1977 through 2018; (3) no notice of determination concerning collection

action was issued to petitioner for tax years 1977 through 2018; and (4) respondent

has not made any other determination with respect to tax years 1977 through 2018

that would confer jurisdiction on the Court. In his motion, respondent requests that

the Court impose an I.R.C. section 6673 penalty. That section authorizes the Court

to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000

whenever it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the

taxpayer primarily for delay or that the position of the taxpayer in such proceeding

is frivolous or groundless.

Although the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to

respondent’s motion to dismiss, petitioner failed to do so.

Taking into account statements made in the petition and for reasons set forth

in respondent’s above-mentioned motion, it is

ORDERED that so much of respondent’s motion that seeks dismissal of the.

case is granted; in all other respects respondent’s motion is denied. It is further

CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

STEPHANIE A^SERVOSS, CLERK

SERVED Oct 22 2018

APPENDIX C

/ //

■MPtrfY CLERK

-2/

/

ORDERED that with respect to each year placed in issue in the petition, this

case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction upon the ground stated in respondent’s

motion.

Although an I.R.C. section 6673 penalty will not be imposed here, petitioner

is admonished that the Court will consider imposing such a penalty in future cases

commenced by petitioner seeking similar relief under similar circumstances.

Maurice B. Foley

Chief Judge

ENTERED:

OCT 22 2018