Dezman v. United States
16-238
| Fed. Cl. | Oct 27, 2016Background
- Pro se plaintiff John J. Dezman sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims alleging the government collected more taxes than owed, seeking damages and injunctive relief; he also alleged RICO, Hobbs Act, and Fourth Amendment violations.
- Dezman asserted jurisdiction under the Tucker Act and 26 U.S.C. § 7426 (wrongful levy), and claimed he filed an administrative refund demand.
- The United States moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing Dezman failed to show full payment of assessed tax liability and failed to plead or attach a valid refund claim; it also argued the court lacks jurisdiction over criminal, tort, and non–money‑mandating constitutional claims.
- The government produced evidence suggesting Dezman had an outstanding tax balance for 2012.
- The court reviewed jurisdictional standards for Tucker Act claims and tax refunds (payment and administrative-claim prerequisites) and found Dezman’s pleadings conclusory and lacking required detail or supporting documents.
- The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the tax refund/wrongful levy claims, criminal/RICO/Hobbs claims, and Fourth Amendment claims (not money‑mandating), and granted the government’s motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction for tax refund claim (Tucker Act) — payment and administrative-claim prerequisites | Dezman contends he paid the assessed liability via IRS levy and filed a refund claim | Gov't argues Dezman did not pay assessed taxes in full and did not plead/attach a valid refund claim or identify tax years/payments | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: Dezman failed to prove full payment or a valid filed refund claim (RCFC 9(m) requirements unmet) |
| Wrongful levy claim under 26 U.S.C. § 7426 (or related collection statutes) | Dezman treats wrongful levy as cognizable here and points to IRS levy/release | Gov't: wrongful levy/collection claims are for district court under specified IRC provisions and regulation-based causes of action require district court venue | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: wrongful levy/collection claims are not maintainable in the Court of Federal Claims |
| Criminal / RICO / Hobbs Act allegations | Dezman alleges extortion, RICO and Hobbs Act violations by government | Gov't: criminal statutes and related claims sound in criminal law or tort and are outside Tucker Act jurisdiction | Dismissed: Court lacks jurisdiction over criminal and tort‑type claims (RICO/Hobbs allegations not cognizable here) |
| Fourth Amendment / other constitutional claims seeking money | Dezman argues constitutional violations (search/seizure/privacy) entitle him to money and injunction | Gov't: Fourth Amendment is not a money‑mandating source that waives sovereign immunity for damages in this court | Dismissed: Fourth Amendment claims do not provide money‑mandating source; court lacks jurisdiction to award damages or injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. United States, 805 F.3d 1082 (Fed. Cir.) (jurisdictional burden and standards)
- Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746 (Fed. Cir.) (consideration of extrinsic evidence when jurisdictional facts challenged)
- Estes Express Lines v. United States, 739 F.3d 689 (Fed. Cir.) (accept factual allegations as true on facial jurisdictional challenges)
- Banks v. United States, 741 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir.) (plaintiff must support jurisdictional assertions with evidence when facts are challenged)
- Jan's Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act requires separate money‑mandating source)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir.) (explaining need for separate substantive source for money damages)
- RadioShack Corp. v. United States, 566 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir.) (Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over tax refund claims subject to prerequisites)
- Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir.) (payment in full is prerequisite for refund suit)
- Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (U.S. Supreme Court) (payment prerequisite for tax refund suits)
- Rocovich v. United States, 933 F.2d 991 (Fed. Cir.) (tax refund suit prerequisites)
- United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court) (administrative‑claim rule for tax suits)
- Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir.) (Fourth Amendment is not money‑mandating for Tucker Act purposes)