David S. Paresky v. United States, 995 F.3d 1281

David and Linda Paresky paid taxes on fictitious Madoff income and sought refunds/credits for tax years 2003–2007 and a 2008 carryback; IRS processed tentative refunds in 2010.
They claimed overpayment interest under I.R.C. § 6611 because the IRS allegedly missed the 45-day refund window; IRS denied additional interest administratively in 2014 and formally in 2015.
The Pareskys sued in the Court of Federal Claims in 2017; the CFC found the claim untimely under the Tucker Act and transferred the case to the Southern District of Florida.
In district court they sought $535,595.95 in overpayment interest and invoked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1); the government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The magistrate relied on the Sixth Circuit’s Scripps decision and recommended partial denial, but the district court adopted the contrary reasoning of the Second Circuit’s Pfizer decision and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: § 1346(a)(1) does not confer district-court jurisdiction over standalone overpayment-interest claims; such claims exceeding $10,000 fall under the Tucker Act and the Court of Federal Claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) gives district courts concurrent jurisdiction over standalone overpayment-interest claims	§1346(a)(1)’s plain text (including "any sum alleged to have been excessive") covers overpayment interest; follow Sixth Circuit (Scripps) and Supreme Court dicta in Flora	§1346(a)(1) covers amounts previously paid to and retained by the government (tax, penalty, or excessive sums); overpayment interest is paid by the government to taxpayers and thus is not a "tax," "penalty," or an "excessive sum" previously collected	Held: No. §1346(a)(1) does not encompass standalone overpayment-interest claims; Tucker Act/Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction for claims over $10,000.

E.W. Scripps Co. & Subsidiaries v. United States, 420 F.3d 589 (6th Cir.) (held §1346(a)(1) includes standalone overpayment interest)
Pfizer Inc. v. United States, 939 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2019) (held §1346(a)(1) does not cover standalone overpayment interest)
Bank of Am. Corp. v. United States, 964 F.3d 1099 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (adopted Pfizer’s reasoning rejecting §1346(a)(1) coverage for overpayment interest)
Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (1960) (Supreme Court discussion of "sum" in §1346(a)(1) relied on in circuit decisions)