Hicks v. United States
130 Fed. Cl. 222
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Will Hicks Jr. alleged the U.S. Department of the Treasury (acting via the Bureau of the Fiscal Service/IRS) illegally offset his federal income tax refunds for two years to satisfy a California Employment Development Department (EDD) overpayment/collection debt.
- Hicks attached letters to Treasury requesting legal authorization for the offsets and a copy of his state-court complaint against EDD; EDD had sent a demand notice asserting an overpayment (~$3,088.80 / $3,807.70 discrepancy) based on an unemployment insurance appeals decision.
- Hicks sued in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking refund of withheld federal tax overpayments and disclosure of state authorization for the garnishment; he alleged violations of various statutes/regulations (31 U.S.C. §§ 3716, 3720A; 31 C.F.R. § 285.8; and 26 U.S.C. § 6402(e)(5)).
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1), arguing 26 U.S.C. § 6402 authorizes offsets of refunds to satisfy state unemployment debts and § 6402(g) bars judicial review against Treasury for such offsets.
- Hicks contended the offset was illegal (so § 6402(g) should not bar review) and also referenced a FOIA request for IRS records.
- The Court concluded Hicks did not allege facts showing the offset failed to meet § 6402 requirements, found the statutory/regulatory provisions he cited were not money-mandating, held § 6402(g) bars court review of Treasury offsets, and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, noting Hicks can sue the state agency directly in state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over claim that Treasury illegally offset Hicks's tax refunds to satisfy state debt | Hicks: Treasury offset was illegal (violated § 6402(e)(5) and procedures), so § 6402(g) statutory bar to review does not apply | U.S.: § 6402(e)/(f) authorizes offsets for covered state debts; § 6402(g) forbids suits against Treasury to restrain/review such reductions | Court: No jurisdiction — § 6402(g) bars review of Treasury offsets here; dismissal granted |
| Whether statutes/regulations Hicks cites are money‑mandating (Tucker Act jurisdiction) | Hicks: Violations of 31 U.S.C. § 3716(c)(6), 31 U.S.C. § 3720A(a), and 31 C.F.R. § 285.8 support relief | U.S.: Those provisions do not provide a right to money damages and are not money‑mandating | Court: Those provisions are not money‑mandating and cannot furnish Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| Whether 31 C.F.R. § 285.8 or 31 U.S.C. §§ 3716/3720A permit federal-court relief | Hicks: Regulatory and statutory procedures were not followed | U.S.: Regulations/statutes do not authorize monetary relief in CFC | Court: Regulations/statutes impose procedures/reporting but do not mandate monetary compensation; no jurisdiction |
| Whether FOIA claim gives CFC jurisdiction | Hicks: Requested IRS records under FOIA and sought relief tied to disclosure | U.S.: FOIA provides district court jurisdiction and is not money‑mandating | Court: FOIA does not confer jurisdiction on CFC; any FOIA relief must be pursued in proper district court |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se complaint standards)
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (Tucker Act requires money‑mandating source)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (Tucker Act waiver scope)
- Ontario Power Generation, Inc. v. United States, 369 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir.) (three categories of monetary claims under Tucker Act)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards; conclusory allegations insufficient)