Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Janice Sue Taylor, Petitioner v. United States

■\

o

»

APPENDIX A

“v

»

' o Case: 20r1473

L Document: 10 vlPage: 1

• Filed: 05/26/2020

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. -'r

i ' i

United States! Court of Appeals

<•*." ..

for tfje Jfeberal Circuit

11, -

JANICE SUE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant

Ml;

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

2020-1473

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims

in No. l:19-cv-01353-NBF, Senior Judge Nancy B. Fire­

stone.

ON MOTION

Per Curiam.

ORDER

Janice Sue Taylor submits an informal reply brief with

a supplemental appendix, which this court construes as a

motion to submit a supplemental appendix.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

Janice Sue Taylor

Plaintiff(s),

v.

THE UNITED STATES

Defendant.

»

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.

Judge

1.M/

COMPLAINT

Your complaint must be clearly handwritten or typewritten, and you must sign and declare under

penalty of perjury that the facts are correct. If you need additional space, you may use another blank

page.

If you intend to proceed without the prepayment of filing fees {in forma pauperis (IFP)), pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915, you must file along with your complaint an application to proceed IFP.

1. JURISDICTION. State the grounds for filing this case in the United States Court of Federal

Claims. The United States Court of Federal Claims has limited jurisdiction (see e.g., 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1491-1509).

Defendant's maliciously and with full knowlidge, took my assets

without jurisdiction to do so. See attached Court Order.

t

2. PARTIES

Plaintiff, Janice Sue Taylor

., resides at 3341 Arianna Ct.

(Street Address)

Gilbert, Arizona 85298

(City, State, ZIP Code)

503 400 9026

(Telephone Number)

If more than one plaintiff, provide the same information for each plaintiff below.

RELATED CASES. Is this case directly related to anypending or previously filed cases in the

United States Court of Federal Claims?

(^) Yes MM No

If yes, please list the case(s) below, including case number(s):

3. STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM. State as briefly as possible the facts of your case. Describe

how the United States is involved. You must state exactly what the United States did, or failed

to do, that has caused you to initiate this legal action. Be as specific as possible and use

additional paper as necessary.

The Defendant's maliciously and knowlingly took assets from me

without jurisdiction to do so, as required by law.

**■

4. RELIEF. Briefly state exactly what you want the court to do for you.

I want the judge to give me a judgment in the amount of

$1b,UU0,000.00 because the Defendant's have admitted the

taking of my assets, without jurisdiction to do so. See attached

Order from the Court.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

day of

Signed this,

(day)

'6L

(month)

-7

Signature of Plaintiff(s)

Clear Form

In OTje ®niteb States Court of jft&tral Claims

Cover Sheet

Plaintiff(s) or Petitioners)

Names: Janice Sue Taylor

Location of Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s) (city/state): FlOfSnce, Arizona

(If this is a multi-plaintiff case, pursuant to RCFC 20(a), please use a separate sheet to list additional plaintiffs. 1

Name of the attorney of record (See RCFC 83.1(c)):

N/A

Firm Name:___________________

Contact information for pro se plaintiff'petitioner or attorney of record:

P.O. Box 982

Post Office Box:

Street Address:

City-State-ZIP:

Florence, Arizona 85132

Telephone & Facsimile Numbers:

503 400 9026

E-mail Address:

stay44@gmail.com

Is the attorney of Teeord admitted to the Court of Federal Claims Bar?

O^es ®No

Nature of Suit Code: 51 5

Agency Identification Code:.TRE

Select oniv one (three digit) uamre-of-suit code fmm the

attached sheet.

Number of Claims Involved:

Amount Claimed: $ 15,000,000.00

Use estimate if specific amount is not pleaded.

Bid Protest Case (required for NOS 138 and 140):

Indicate approximate dollar amount of procurement at issue: S.

Is plaintiff a small business?

0Yes {#)No

Was this action preceded by the filing of a

protest before the GAO?

O'® No GAO Solicitation No.

If yes, was a decision on the merits rendered? ^^) Yes

No

Income Tax (Partnership) Case:

Identify partnership or partnership group:____ ________ _______

Takings Case:

Specify Location of Property (city/state):

Vaccine Case:

Date of Vaccination:

Related Case:

Is this case directly related to any pending or previously filed

case(s) in the United States Court of Federal Claims? if>«.youaarequired to tile a separate nonce of directly related case(s). See RCFC 40.2.

178

0Yes @No

Nature-of-Suit Codes for General Jurisdiction Cases

100 Contract - Construction - (CDA)

102 Contract - Fail to Award - (CDA)

104 Contract - Lease - (CDA)

106 Contract - Maintenance - (CDA)

108 Contract - Renovation - (CDA)

110 Contract - Repair - (CDA)

112 Contract - Sale - (CDA)

114 Contract - Service - (CDA)

116 Contract - Supply - (CDA)

118 Contract - Other - (CDA)

120 Contract - Bailment

122 Contract - Bid Preparation Costs

124 Contract - Medicare Act

125 Contract - Affordable Care Act

126 Contract - Realty Sale

128 Contract - Subsidy

130 Contract - Surety

132 Contract - Timber Sale

134 Contract - Other

136 Contract - Other - Wunderlich

13 8 Contract - Protest (Pre Award)

140 Contract - Protest (Post Award)

200 Tax - Allowance of Interest

202 Tax - Declaratory Judgment - 28:1507

204 Tax - Estate

206 Tax-Excise

208 Tax-Gift

210 Tax - Income, Corporate

212 Tax - Income, Individual

213 Tax - Income, Individual (Partnership)

214 Tax-Informer’s Fees

216 Tax - Preparer’s Penalty

218 Tax-Railroad

Retirement/Unemployment Tax Act

220 Tax - TEFRA Partnership - 28:1508

222 Tax-Windfall Profit

Overpayment -Interest

224 Tax -100% Penalty - 26:6672 Withholding

226 Tax-Other

348 Military Pay - Reinstatement

350 Military Pay - Relocation Expenses

352 Military Pav - Retirement

354 Military Pay - SBP

356 Military Pay - Other

500 Carrier - transportation

502 Copyright

504 Native American

506 Oil Spill Clean Up

507 Taking - Town Bluff Dam

508 Patent

509 Taking - Addicks & Barker Reservoirs

510 Taking - Personalty

512 Taking - Realty

513 Taking - Rails to Trails

300 Civilian Pay - Back Pay

514 Taking-Other

302 Civilian Pay - COLA

515 Unjust Conviction and Imprisonment

303 Civilian Pay - Disability Annuity

516 Miscellaneous - Damages

304 Civilian Pay-FLSA

518 Miscellaneous - Lease

306 Civilian Pay - Overtime Compensation 520 Miscellaneous - Mineral Leasing Act

308 Civilian Pay - Relocation Expenses

522 Miscellaneous - Oyster Growers

Damages

310 Civilian Pay - Suggestion Award

524 Miscellaneous - Safety Off. Ben. Act

312 Civilian Pay - Other

526 Miscellaneous - Royalty/Penalty Gas

Production

340 Military Pay - Back Pay

528 Miscellaneous - Other

342 Military Pay-CHAMPUS

535 Informer’s Reward

344 Military Pay - Correct records

536 Spent Nuclear Fuel

346 Military Pay - Correct/Reinstate

Nature-of-Suit Codes for Vaccine Cases

449 Injury - Hepatitis A

453 Injury - Pneumococcal Conjugate

456 Injury - DPT & Polio

457 Injury -D/T

458 Injury - DTP/DPT

459 Injury - Measles

460 Injury - M/M/R

461 Injury - Measles/Rubella

462 Injury-Mumps

463 Injury - Pertussis

464 Injury - Polio - inactive

465 Injury - Polio - other

466 Injury - Rubella

467 Injury - Tetanus & Diphtheria

468 Injury - Tetanus & Tox.

469 Injury-Other

484 Injury - Hepatitis B

485 Injury - Hemophilus Influenzae

486 Injury - Varicella

490 Injury - Rotavirus

492 Injury - Thimerosal

494 Injury - Trivalent Influenzae

496 Injury - Meningococcal

498 injury - Human Papillomavirus

452 Death - Hepatitis A

454 Death - Pneumococcal Conjugate

470 Death - DPT & Polio

471 Death - D/T

472 Death - DTP/DPT

473 Death - Measles

474 Death - M/M/R

475 Death - Measles/Rubella

476 Death-Mumps

179

477 Death - Pertussis

478 Death - Polio - inactive

479 Death - Polio - other

480 Death - Rubella

481 Death - Tetanus & Diphtheria

482 Death - Tetanus & Tox.

483 Death - Other

487 Death - Hepatitus B

488 Death - Hemophilus Influenzae

489 Death - Varicella

491 Death - Rotavirus

493 Death - Thimerosal

495 Death - Trivalent Influenzae

497 Death - Meningococcal

499 Death - Human Papillomavirus

AGENCY CODES

AGR

Agriculture

TRN

Department of Transportation

AF

Air Force

TRE

Department of Treasury

ARM

Army

VA

Department ofVeterans Affairs

AEC

Atomic Energy Commission

VAR

Various Agencies

COM

Department of Commerce

O

Other

DOD

Department of Defense

DOE

Department of Energy

ED

Department of Education

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

GPO

Government Printing Office

GSA

General Services Administration

HHS

Health and Human Services

HLS

Homeland Security

HUD

Housing and Urban Development

DO!

Department of the Interior

ICC

Interstate Commerce Commission

DOJ

Department of Justice

LAB

Department of Labor

MC

Marine Corps

NAS

National Aeronautical Space Agency

NAV

' Navy

NRC

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

PS

Postal Service

STA

State Department

SBA

Small Business Administration

180

jii,

FORM 12. Informal Brief (District Court. Court of International Trade, and Court of Federal Claims Cases)

Janice Sue Taylor

Appellant

v.

Copy of Form 12

Rev. 03/16

UNITED STATES

Appellee

Case No. 20-1473

Read the Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants before completing this form. Attach a copy of the final

decision or order of the trial court. Answer the following questions as best you can. Your answers should

refer to the decision or order you are appealing where possible. Use extra sheets if needed.

1. Have you ever had another case in this court? QYes jj^No. If yes, state the name and number of each

case.

2. Did the trial court incorrectly decide or fail to take into account any facts? ®Yes []No. If yes, what facts?

(refer to paragraph 7 of the Guide).

/

Yes, Appellants claim was based on MANDATORY STATUTES, and Respondents never once took into

account that they had violated Appellant's due process by NEVER abiding by the Statutes. The Boss,

the Commissioner of Internal Revenue admitted and the Tax Court Judge agreed with him that they

never sent Appellant a Statutory Notice of Deficiency or a Statutory Notice of Determination as

required by law, per USC 26 Sections 6212 and 6213(a), through the years 2000-2018,

3. Did the trial court apply the wrong law?j^Yes []No. If yes, what law should be applied?

The Tucker Act of 1887, specifically extended the original Court of Claims jurisdiction to include

claims for liquidated or unliquidated damages arising from the CONSTITUTION (includfng

takings claims under the Fifth Amendment), a FEDERAL STATUTE Or REGULATION, and claims

in cases not arising in tort. Specifically, the Tucker Act permits three kinds of claims against the

government: (1) contractual claims, (2) noncontractual claims where the plaintiff seeks the

return of money paid to the government and (3) noncontractual claims where the plaintiff

asserts that he is entitled to payment by the government. Today, jurisdiction over Tucker Act

claims is vested in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The United States Court of

Federal Claims has EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction over Tucker Act claims in excess of $10,000.

Therefore, Monetary claims, Just Compensation, the taking of Private-Property, Constitutional

Violations, Violations of Statutes and Damages for Breaches of Contracts with the Government, .

are all vested acts this Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over. As spelled out in the

original claim and restated herein, all of the above has occurred due to breaches between the,

government and Appellant.

Page 1 of 3

< •

'1

FORM 12. Informal Brief (District Court. Court of International Trade, and Court of Federal Claims Cases)

Copy of Form 12

Rev. 03/16

4. Did the trial court fail to consider important grounds for relief?J£)Yes □No. If yes, what grounds?

The trial court failed to acknowledge that once due process is denied, all claims against Appellant

become null and void. The trial court never addressed due process being denied, and with any

mention of the Tucker Act, they purposely avoided mentioning that the court had jurisdiction to hear

any of the above issues according to the Tucker Acts purpose. According to the Tucker Acts own

admission, Appellant has important grounds for relief, which were not addressed nor considered , see

above.

5. Are there other reasons why the trial court's decision was wrong?J0Yes GNo. If yes, what reasons?

By Respondents own admission, on page 2, para 2, They acknowledge: "IRC 26 Section 6212 requires

the Internal Revenue Service to issue a notice of deficiency in the event of a tax payer's tax deficiency.

IRC 26 § 6213(a) authorizes the tax payer to petition the Tax Court once a notice of deficiency has been

issued. The Boss, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Tax Court Judge both agreed that

they have no jurisdiction, the Tax Court judge ruled that upon the Commissioners response, they had

no Jurisdiction over Appellant overthe years 2000-2018. The reason they gave was because they had

not issued any Statutory Notices of Deficiency or Statutory Notices of Determination through all the

years 2000-2018, see enclosed Order.

The failure to issue any Statutory Notices of Deficiency or Determination, are critical to Appellant's

case. Appellant has suffered and incurred many years of unlawful actions by the government against

her, only to now find out that the government had NO JURISDICTION TO DO THOSE THINGS TO,HER, in

the first place. The Respondents are talking double talk with forked tongue. The Tucker Act specifically

says and the Respondents agreed, (pg 3 para 2), that this court provides jurisdiction over "any claim

against the United States founded either upon the CONSTITUTION, or any ACT OF CONGRESS [Statutes

enacted] or any REGULATION, of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract »

with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort. Appellant declares the root of her claims are all based on Constitutional Violations and Acts of.

Congress. She was never given the Statutory Notices, an Act of Congress, as required and Mandatory.

This Court by its own admission does have jurisdiction over the Tucker Act in its entirety, and

Appellant's due process was violated under the fifth amendment to the Constitution, by not issuing the. *

Statutory Notices IRC 26 §§ 6212 and 6213(a) as required.

6. What action to you want the court to take in this case?

I want the court to acknowledge that my case is based on the violations of Statutes of the court and

the Constitution. Which the Tucker Act specifically says this court has jurisdiction over. Respondents

Page 2 of 3

FQRM_12,. Informal Brief (District Court, Court of International Trade, and Court of Federal Claims Cases)

Copy of Form 12

Rev. 03/16

admitted they violated these Statutes against Appellant over 2000-2018, specifically USC 26 §§ 6212

and 6213(a). For the court To grant Appellant the monetary compensation she is asking for and due,

because Respondents did not apply these Mandatory Statutes that caused all of the damages and

repercusions against her. Respondents admitted in all of their Orders, they had no jurisdiction over

Appellant, through the years 2000-2018. Which is true, however Appellant suffered irreparable

damages by Respondents not applying these Mandatory Statutes. It is a due process violation, under.,

the Constitution, to not give Appellant any Mandatory Statutory Notices of Deficiency or Statutory

Notices of Determination required by law, and Respondents have admitted they didn't issue any,

through all years 2000-2018, see attached. Appelllant should be awarded monetary compensation of

$15,000,000.00 for damages incurred during these years.

7. Do you believe argument will aid the court? □YesJ^No. If yes submit a separate notice to the court

requesting oral argument and include the reasons why argument will aid the court, (refer to paragraph 15

of the Guide).

No, I believe that honorable courts are able to read and understand the statutes and law, whether in

person or in correspondence. A honorable court knows the law and should abide by it to the tee.

8. Do you intend to represent yourself?$fYes []No. If you have not filed and Entry of Appearance, indicate

your full name, address, telephone number and e-mail address.

Yes, I am Pro Se,

Phone:503-400-9026

Email: justamac@gmail.

Janice Sue Taylor

P.O. Box 982

Florence, Arizona 85132

9. I certify that a copy of this brief and any attachments were sent to: Director, commercial branch, civil

division, DOJ, for the attorney for appellee, at the following address: P.O. Box 480 Ben Franklin Station,

Washington D.C. 20044. (If you do not send a copy of this brief to the appellee, the court will not file the

brief) I was not sent the Attorney's name or address.

/

Date

Appellant's signature

In addition to mailing a copy to the attorney for the Appellee, mail three copies of this informal brief and

attachments to:

Clerk of Court

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

717 Madison Place NW

Washington, DC 20439

Page 3 of 3

r"

>1 “

APPENDIX B

Case: 20-1473

Document: 20

Page: 1

Filed: 08/25/2020

SHntteb States Court of Appeals

for tljc jfebcral Circuit

JANICE SUE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

2020-1473

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims

in No. l:19-cv-01353-NBF, Senior Judge Nancy B.

Firestone.

JUDGMENT

THIS Cause having been considered, it is

Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED

Entered By Order Of The Court

August 25. 2020

Is/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Slntteti States Court of Appeals:

for tfje Jfeberal Circuit

JANICE SUE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

2020-1473

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims

in No. l:19-cv-01353-NBF, Senior Judge Nancy B.

Firestone.

MANDATE

In accordance with the judgment of this Court, entered

August 25, 2020, and pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal

Rules of Appellate Procedure, the formal mandate is

hereby issued.

FOR THE COURT

October 16. 2020

/si Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

3fn tFje fflmteb states? Court of jfeberal Claim#

No. 19-1353 T

(Filed: January 27,2020)

JANICE SUE TAYLOR

Plaintiff

v

JUDGMENT

THE UNITED STATES

Defendant

Pursuant to the court’s Order, filed January 27,2020, granting defendant’s motion to

dismiss,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this date, pursuant to Rule 58, that plaintiffs

complaint is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Lisa L. Reyes

Clerk of Court

By: 4#-^

Deputy Clerk

HQI1: As to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 60 days from

this date, see RCFC 58.1, re number of copies and listing of all plaintiffs. Filing fee is $505.00.

,w.

APPENDIX C

f

f

f ■

Case: 20-1473

Document: 19

Page: 1

Filed: 08/25/2020

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

Uniteti States Court of appeals

for tfje Jfeberal Circuit

JANICE SUE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

2020-1473

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims

in No. l:19-cv-01353-NBF, Senior Judge Nancy B. Fire­

stone.

Decided: August 25, 2020

Janice Sue Taylor, Florence, AZ, pro se.

JANET A. BRADLEY, Tax Division, United States Depart­

ment of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee.

Also represented by JOAN I. OPPENHEIMER, RICHARD E.

ZUCKERMAN.

Before LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

Case: 20-1473

2

Document: 19

Page: 2

Filed: 08/25/2020

TAYLOR v. UNITED STATES

Per Curiam.

Janice Sue Taylor appeals from a final decision of the

U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissing her complaint for

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Taylor v. United States,

No. 19-1353-T, 2020 WL 983245 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 27, 2020).

Because we agree that the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction

over Taylor’s complaint, we affirm.

Background

In 2010, Taylor was convicted on eight counts of tax

evasion and willful failure to file tax returns between 2003

and 2006. She was sentenced to 78 months of incarcera­

tion, which she has completed, and ordered to pay

$2,234,219 in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service

(IRS).

In 2019, Taylor filed a complaint in the Claims Court,1

seeking $15 million for the government’s taking of her as­

sets “maliciously and with full knowledge . . . without ju­

risdiction to do so.” Complaint at 1, Taylor v. United

States, No. 19-1353-T (Fed. Cl. Sept. 5, 2019). In Taylor’s

view, the government failed to comply with I.R.C. §§6212

and 6213 and therefore lacked entitlement to charge her

with tax evasion or to collect taxes from her. Taylor also

sought damages for fraud or unlawful imprisonment.

The Claims Court dismissed all counts of Taylor’s com­

plaint for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, the court dis­

missed Taylor’s claims based on the Internal Revenue Code

because its jurisdiction to hear such tax cases is limited to

actions seeking the refund of taxes, penalties, and interest

Taylor also sought relief in other forums, including

the United States Tax Court. Relevant here, in 2018, Tay­

lor filed a petition in the Tax Court, also challenging the

IRS’s failure to comply with I.R.C. §§ 6212 and 6213, but

that petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

i

Case: 20-1473

Document: 19

Page: 3

Filed: 08/25/2020

3

TAYLOR V. UNITED STATES

paid to the government. Taylor’s unlawful imprisonment

and fraud claims were dismissed because they are tort

claims outside the jurisdiction of the Claims Court.

Taylor appealed, and we have jurisdiction over the

Claims Court’s decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

Discussion

We review the Claims Court’s decision regarding its ju­

risdiction without deference because a determination of the

court’s jurisdiction is a question of law. Hanlin v. United

States, 214 F.3d 1319, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

In this appeal, Taylor argues that her due process

rights were violated because the government failed to com­

ply with I.R.C. §§ 6212 and 6213 in the proceedings leading

to her conviction. According to Taylor, in dismissing her

Tax Court action, the government “agreed” that it had no

jurisdiction over her from 2000 to 2018 because it failed to

send required notices. Reply Br. 4. She maintains that she

is not seeking a refund and that her claim is a specialized

one based on I.R.C. §§ 6212 and 6213 that falls within the

Claims Court’s jurisdiction. Reply Br. 2.

The government responds that I.R.C. §§ 6212 and 6213

are not money-mandating statutes and cannot provide ju­

risdiction over Taylor’s claims in the Claims Court. For

Taylor’s other claims, the government submits that they

are either tort claims or Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment

claims outside of the Claims Court’s jurisdiction.

We agree with the government. The Tucker Act is the

primary statute conferring tax jurisdiction on the Claims

Court. See Taylor v. United States, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359

(Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (2000)). But

the Tucker Act is only a jurisdictional statute, and “it does

not create any substantive right enforceable against the

United States for money damages.” United States v.

Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976). Thus, “a plaintiff must

identify a separate source of substantive law that creates

Case: 20-1473

4

Document: 19

Page: 4

Filed: 08/25/2020

TAYLOR v. UNITED STATES

the right to money damages.” Fisher v. United States, 402

F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing United States v.

Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 217 (1983)).

Taylor challenges the government’s compliance with

I.R.C. §§ 6212 and 6213, but .neither of these statutes can

be fairly interpreted as money-mandating. Section 6212

* provides parameters governing the IRS’s mailing of notices

of deficiency. Section 6213(a) provides a taxpayer with 90

days after the mailing of a notice of deficiency to commence

a Tax Court proceeding to challenge the deficiency. Noth­

ing in either section provides a right to damages if the gov­

ernment fails to comply with the stated requirements.

Taylor’s remaining claims fare no better. To the extent

she raises tort claims for fraud or false imprisonment or

constitutional claims for lack of due process, those claims

are outside of the Claims Court’s jurisdiction. See, e.g.,

Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997)

(explaining that the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over

tort actions against the United States); Smith v. United

States, 709 F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The law is

well settled that the Due Process clauses of both the Fifth

and Fourteenth Amendments do not mandate the payment

of money and thus do not provide a cause of action under

the Tucker Act.” (citing LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d

1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995))).

After the deadline for filing a memorandum in lieu of

oral argument had passed, Taylor filed a document in this

appeal reiterating arguments made in her opening brief.

Extension - Brief Summary, Taylor v. United States, No.

20-1473 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 17, 2020), ECF No. 18. We have

construed this filing as a motion to file her memorandum

out of time, and the motion is granted.

Conclusion

Because Taylor has failed to allege any claim that falls

within the Claims Court’s jurisdiction, the Claims Court

Case: 20-1473

Document: 19

Page: 5

TAYLOR v. UNITED STATES

Filed: 08/25/2020

5

was correct in dismissing her complaint under

Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of

Federal Claims. Accordingly, the judgment of the Claims

Court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

»v>

V

APPENDIX D

A

*

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

JANICE SUE TAYLOR/

Petitioner,

)

)

)

)

v.

}

Docket No.

279-19

)

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

)

Respondent.

)

)

Filed Electronically

RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER DATED MARCH 28, 2019

IN RESPONSE to the Court's Order dated March 28, 2019,

Respondent respectfully states the following:

1.

On January 28, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition in

the above-captioned case stating that she had not received a

notice of deficiency or notice of determination for the 2000

through 2018 tax years, inclusive.

2.

Respondent filed an Answer in response to Petitioner's

Petition on March 27, 2019.

3.

The Court issued an Order on March 28, 2019 requesting

Respondent to file a response to the Order attaching a complete

copy of the notice of deficiency and/or notice of determination

giving rise to this case.

4.

As explained more fully in Respondent's Motion to

Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Impose a Penalty under

I.R.C. § 6673, filed concurrently with this Response, Respondent,

has diligently searched its records and has determined that no .

£

Docket No. 279-19

2

notices of deficiency or notices of determination have been

issued to Petitioner that would give rise to jurisdiction in

this case.

MICHAEL J. DESMOND

. Chief Counsel

Internal Revenue Service

Date:

APR 19 2019

TRISHA S. FARROW

Attorney

(Small Business/Self-Empioyed)

Tax Court Bar No. FT0216

M/S 2200 PX

4041 N Central Ave.

STE 112

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone: 602-636-9622

Trisha.S.FarrowQirscounsel.

treas.gov

OF COUNSEL:

BRUCE K. MENEELY

Division Counsel

(Small Business/Seif-Employed)

EDWIN A. HERRERA

Area Counsel

(Small Business/Self-Employed:Area 5)

RACHAEL J. ZEPEDA

Associate Area Counsel

(Small Business/Seif-Employed)

i