Birdman v. Office of the Governor
56 V.I. 973
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Consolidated suit by Harvey and Diane Birdman, and Herbert and Bonita Hirsch, and affiliated Virgin Islands entities Barclay and Kingsbridge, against the Virgin Islands and the United States over income sourced to the Virgin Islands for 2006.
- Birdmans/Hirsches claim some 2006 income is from Virgin Islands sources but they are not bona fide residents; they filed both VI and U.S. tax returns and paid both taxes to the U.S.
- They seek a negative injunction from the VI VIBIR to determine income source and refunds from the U.S. for amounts paid to the U.S. without VI payment.
- The VI District Court dismissed the VI claim for failure to state a claim and ripeness; U.S. claims were transferred to the Southern District of Florida.
- District Court retained mandamus petition regarding forum for the U.S. tax claims; this Court affirms dismissal and transfer, and denies mandamus.
- The Court addresses jurisdiction/venue under 48 U.S.C. § 1612(a) and the proper forum for Virgin Islands tax matters under 28 U.S.C. § 1402(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellants stated a claim against the Virgin Islands | Birdmans/Hirsches contend for a negative injunction based on VI taxation. | VI argued no cognizable cause of action; claim not ripe and no proper remedy. | Claim against VI dismissed for failure to state a claim and not ripe. |
| Ripeness of the VI claim | Appellants argued the action would not require a final agency action to decide. | VI stated no final determination or enforcement action occurred. | Ripeness requirement satisfied; no actionable controversy at this time. |
| Forum/venue for VI tax matters; exclusivity of VI District Court | Under § 1612(a), VI District Court has exclusive jurisdiction over VI tax matters against local courts. | Exclusive jurisdiction limited to proceedings in the Virgin Islands against local courts; transfer permissible. | § 1612(a) does not bar transfer to other federal courts; venue properly lies in the Southern District of Florida for the U.S. tax claims. |
| Mandamus to compel VI District Court to decide U.S. tax claims | VI District Court must decide all VI tax matters; transfer was improper. | Transfer to Florida proper; mandamus not warranted. | Mandamus denied; transfer proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1402(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading plausibility standard; mere possibility not enough)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1967) (ripeness doctrine for administrative action)
- In re United States, 273 F.3d 380 (3d Cir.2001) (mandamus to review transfer orders)
- Hahnemann Univ. Hosp. v. Edgar, 74 F.3d 456 (3d Cir.1996) (mandamus and extraordinary relief standards)
- Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (U.S. 2004) (mandamus relief prerequisites and discretion)
- Edwards v. HOVENSA, LLC, 497 F.3d 355 (3d Cir.2007) (jurisdictional framework for VI district court)
- Parrott v. Gov't of V.I., 230 F.3d 615 (3d Cir.2000) (contextual jurisdiction between VI courts and federal courts)
- Thorstenn v. Barnard, 842 F.2d 1393 (3d Cir.1988) (exclusive jurisdiction and geographic limitation interpretation)
- Abramson Enters., Inc. v. Gov't of V.I., 994 F.2d 140 (3d Cir.1993) (VI tax code mirroring federal code; local courts lack jurisdiction)