Christen v. United States
133 Fed. Cl. 226
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Michael Christen (pro se) sued the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging the Government breached a settlement/contract that had resulted in the IRS reducing his federal tax to zero in exchange for consulting work and inventions (including a claimed Space Shuttle heat-shield invention).
- Christen sent an invoice to the General Accounting Office in 1993 for $640,000 for consulting/inventions; the invoice was never paid.
- Christen alleges he negotiated a settlement with the IRS that offset the invoice against federal income taxes for 1999–2004, but later the IRS assessed taxes, penalties and interest (allegedly beginning in 2009).
- Christen filed a Tax Court petition (petition filed July 8, 2014); Tax Court ruled against him in 2016.
- Christen filed his complaint in the Court of Federal Claims on March 6, 2017 asserting breach of contract and unjust enrichment; the Government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- The Court granted the Government’s RCFC 12(b)(1) motion, holding Christen’s breach-based claims were time-barred under the Tucker Act six‑year statute of limitations and thus the court lacked jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has Tucker Act jurisdiction (money‑mandating source) | Christen contends a settlement/contract with the Government (via IRS) and assurances from ABC establish a money‑mandating source | Gov't argues Christen failed to non‑frivolously allege a money‑mandating source or interactions with officials who could bind the Government | Court found jurisdiction lacking because claims were time‑barred; also noted insufficient contract allegations in alternative briefing |
| Whether the complaint states an implied‑in‑fact contract claim | Christen alleges negotiated settlement with IRS and promises to be paid for consulting | Gov't contends pleadings do not plausibly allege elements of an implied‑in‑fact contract | Court dismissed on jurisdictional grounds (statute‑of‑limitations); also observed failure to plausibly allege implied‑in‑fact contract elements as alternative basis for dismissal |
| Whether an equitable/unjust‑enrichment (implied‑in‑law) claim is actionable in this court | Christen asserts unjust enrichment for Government’s use of his inventions/services without payment | Gov't argues Tucker Act does not waive sovereign immunity for implied‑in‑law claims | Court noted implied‑in‑law claims are not within Tucker Act waiver and are not recoverable against the Government |
| Whether the claims are barred by the six‑year statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2501) | Christen argues limitations should run from June 2, 2016 (Tax Court decision) because he did not know of breach before then | Gov't argues breach occurred/was known by 2009 and limitations ran from then | Court held claims accrued in 2009 (when assessments occurred/should have been known) and Christen’s 2017 filing was untimely, so dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act is jurisdictional)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (source of law must fairly be interpreted to mandate compensation)
- Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d 1091 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act requires independent substantive right for money damages)
- Jan's Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. FAA, 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.) (must non‑frivolously allege membership in class entitled to recover under money‑mandating source)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir.) (non‑frivolous allegation requirement)
- Lewis v. United States, 70 F.3d 597 (Fed. Cir.) (frivolous/insubstantial claims may be dismissed for jurisdictional reasons)
- Palmer v. United States, 168 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir.) (procedural distinction between 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motions)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se complaints held to less stringent standard)
- Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. United States, 855 F.2d 1573 (Fed. Cir.) (claims accrue when claimant knows or should know of injury)
- Mildenberger v. United States, 643 F.3d 938 (Fed. Cir.) (affirming dismissal where claim filed outside § 2501 six‑year period)