Amsinger v. United States
99 Fed. Cl. 254
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Thomas I. Amsinger filed his complaint in June 2010 alleging the IRS breached an implied contract to pay a reward for information leading to tax collection.
- Amsinger claimed an implied contract arose from discussions with IRS employee Ms. Drury in 2003 and from handling of IRS Form 211 applications.
- Amsinger submitted multiple Form 211s; the IRS repeatedly rejected them as not meeting reward criteria, while he contends taxes were recovered as a result of his information.
- Plaintiff asserts the government’s reward scheme created a contractual right to a percentage of recovered taxes, alleging special handling by Drury supported formation of a contract.
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint.
- Second amended complaint clarified the claim as a contract-based reward claim; the court nonetheless held there was no binding contract and dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Tucker Act authorize this suit? | Amsinger asserts implied contract-based recovery under money-mandating source. | Government argues lack of money-mandating source and jurisdiction to hear such claims. | No jurisdiction over the contract claim under Tucker Act. |
| Is § 7623(a) alone money-mandating or contract-based jurisdiction exists here? | § 7623(a) supports a reward contract claim in this court. | § 7623(a) does not create a binding contract absent negotiated fixed amount. | § 7623(a) claim dismissed; not money-mandating. |
| Did Amsinger plead a valid implied-in-fact reward contract? | Drury’s discussions and special handling formed an implied contract for a reward. | No fixed amount or authority to bind the United States; no contract formed. | No valid implied-in-fact contract; dismissal for failure to state a claim. |
| Did Drury have authority to bind the United States to a reward contract? | Drury’s actions indicated possible authority to secure a reward. | Only service center or district directors can bind the government; Drury lacked authority. | Drury lacked binding contracting authority; no contract. |
Key Cases Cited
- Merrick v. United States, 846 F.2d 725 (Fed.Cir. 1988) (contract formation required; government fixes reward amount to bind)
- Cambridge v. United States, 558 F.3d 1331 (Fed.Cir. 2009) (reward claim must allege negotiated fixed amount; contract theory favored)
- Krug v. United States, 168 F.3d 1307 (Fed.Cir. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion review status debated; contract formation emphasized)
- DaCosta v. United States, 82 Fed.Cl. 549 (Fed.Cl. 2008) (dismissed § 7623 claims; lack of contract formation)
- Doe v. United States, 38 Fed.Cl. 377 (Fed.Cl. 1997) (Court of Claims lacked contract formation to bind government)
- Confidential Informant v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 1 (Fed.Cl. 2000) (contract formation approach preferred; statutory claim duplicative)
- Stack v. United States, 25 Cl.Ct. 634 (Court of Claims 1991) (reward not fixed; no binding contract)
- Thomas v. United States, 22 Cl.Ct. 749 (Court of Claims 1991) (IRS denials show no agreed reward; lack of contract)