Kim v. United States
840 F. Supp. 2d 180
D.D.C.2012Background
- Kims filed a 21-count complaint seeking money damages under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 against the United States and IRS actors for alleged collection-related violations and harassment.
- Court previously dismissed most counts; on appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed in part and remanded on Counts 20 and 21 (claims against the United States under § 7433).
- Counts 20 and 21 allege violations of § 6303 (notice of assessment) and § 6304 (harassment in collection), respectively.
- Action was filed September 25, 2008; statute of limitations under § 7433(d)(3) requires filing within two years after accrual.
- Court found most alleged conduct occurred before September 25, 2006, saving only a June 12, 2007 Letter 3175-C from consideration for accrual purposes.
- Court dismissed Counts 20 and 21 as untimely and dismissed the action in its entirety for lack of extant claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Counts 20 and 21 time-barred by § 7433(d)(3)? | Kim contends limitations should be tolled or waived. | U.S. argues accrual before Sept. 25, 2006; only 2007 letter falls within period and does not salvage claims. | Counts 20 and 21 are time-barred. |
| Does sovereign immunity or waiver affect timeliness analysis? | Waiver or tolling may extend or avoid limitations. | § 7433 provides a jurisdictional two-year limit; failure to meet it deprives court of jurisdiction. | Sovereign immunity and two-year limit are jurisdictional; defense preserved. |
| Do the Kims’ remaining arguments justify leave to amend or overcome dismissal? | Counts could be cured by amendment. | No proposed amended pleading was supplied; amendment would be futile and procedural rules require a proper motion. | Leave to amend denied; action dismissed for lack of timely claims. |
| Should the Kims’ motion for surreply be allowed? | Surreply needed to address new points in reply. | Sur Replies disfavored; arguments raised in reply were not first-time matters. | Surreply motion denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (jurisdictional limits recognized for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596 (1990) (statutory waiver of sovereign immunity with time limitations matters for jurisdiction)
- Moms Against Mercury v. FDA, 483 F.3d 824 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (strict approach to jurisdictional questions in administrative contexts)
- Keohane v. United States, 775 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D.D.C. 2011) (accrual timing under § 7433d(3) and knowledge of duties matters)
- Laughlin v. CIR, 103 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (distinguishing between notice of assessment and frivolous-arguments correspondence)
- Spahr v. United States, 501 F. Supp. 2d 92 (D.D.C. 2007) (requirements for harassment/collection conduct under § 6304)
- Davis v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 2d 91 (D.D.C. 2008) (time-bar analysis for § 7433 claims)
- Dziura v. United States, 168 F.3d 581 (1st Cir. 1999) (knowledge of law affects accrual analysis)
- Keohane v. United States, 775 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D.D.C. 2011) (accrual timing and discovery standard for § 7433 claims)