Huelbig v. United States
16-1650
| Fed. Cl. | Oct 6, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Dennis J. Huelbig Jr., pro se, sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims seeking a tax refund (orig. claimed $315,111 for 2009), damages ($400,000), abatement of assessment, and a declaratory judgment.
- Plaintiff alleges an IRS refund check for $125,904.04 (Aug 2012) was returned undeliverable and that he filed a Form 843 (Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement) in Oct 2012.
- Plaintiff received a September 16, 2013 IRS notice concerning the 2011 tax year that he treats as a denial of his refund claim.
- The government moved to partially dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for a more definite statement; plaintiff did not respond.
- Court found plaintiff’s pleadings lacked the RCFC 9(m) attachments and identifying information required in tax refund suits and determined it lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff’s damages, abatement, and declaratory-judgment claims.
- Court granted partial dismissal (claims for damages, abatement, and declaratory relief dismissed without prejudice), granted motion for more definite statement, denied in forma pauperis, and ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint compliant with RCFC 9(m).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court has jurisdiction over refund claim and related relief | Huelbig treats the Sept. 16, 2013 IRS notice as denial and seeks refund of originally reported amounts | Govt: plaintiff failed to meet RCFC 9(m); some requested relief is beyond Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction | Court retained only the tax refund claim insofar as plaintiff may amend; dismissed other relief without prejudice |
| Damages under IRC § 7433 | Huelbig seeks $400,000 in damages (including punitive) for IRS conduct | Govt: § 7433 damages suits must be filed in district court, not CFC | Court lacks jurisdiction over § 7433 damages; dismissed without prejudice |
| Abatement of tax assessment | Huelbig seeks abatement of unpaid assessment | Govt: Abatement challenges are barred by the Anti-Injunction Act as attempts to restrain tax collection | Court lacks jurisdiction over abatement claim under Anti-Injunction Act; dismissed without prejudice |
| Declaratory relief re: tax rights/duties | Huelbig seeks declaratory judgment about rights and duties | Govt: CFC may not grant declaratory judgments regarding federal taxes (28 U.S.C. § 2201) | Court lacks power to grant declaratory relief in tax cases; dismissed without prejudice |
| Sufficiency of pleadings under RCFC 9(m) | Huelbig filed pro se complaint and IFP motion but did not include required refund claim copy or identifying info | Govt: RCFC 9(m) requires claim copy and specific identifying facts; pro se status does not excuse requirement | Court granted motion for more definite statement and ordered amended complaint complying with RCFC 9(m) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (waiver of sovereign immunity under Tucker Act for money claims)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act does not create substantive rights)
- United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. 1 (tax refund suits require exhaustion of IRS administrative scheme)
- Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378 (CFC cannot award tax-collection-related damages)
- Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299 (need independent source of substantive right to money damages)
- Sweeney v. United States, 285 F.2d 444 (CFC lacks jurisdiction to grant declaratory judgment in tax cases)
- Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (limitations of Tucker Act jurisdiction)