Langley v. United States
17-1818
| Fed. Cir. | Nov 20, 2017Background
- Gina Brasher Langley, pro se, sued in the Court of Federal Claims seeking $51,068.84 in federal income tax refunds for 2004, 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2013 and requested removal of her ex-husband and his attorney’s charging lien from her homestead.
- 2004 return was filed jointly with ex-husband Barney Langley; divorce occurred later and a charging lien was recorded in 2006 by his attorney Suzanne Green.
- Langley previously filed two Tax Court actions that were dismissed. She filed the Claims Court complaint on February 10, 2016, and a supplemental filing clarified the tax years at issue.
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1); the Court of Federal Claims dismissed: (1) the 2004 refund claim as untimely under 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a), (2) the 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013 refund claims as premature under 26 U.S.C. § 6532(a)(1), and (3) the property/quiet-title claims for lack of Tucker Act jurisdiction and as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2501.
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed jurisdiction de novo and affirmed—finding no timely administrative refund claim for 2004, the later-year refund suits were filed before the six-month IRS waiting period elapsed, and the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over private property disputes against non-federal parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of 2004 refund under § 6511(a) | Langley says she submitted a 2006 claim (letter) and challenges IRS transcript dates | Government: no timely administrative claim for 2004; record shows return filed May 30, 2005 and last payment Feb 24, 2006; informal letter not a valid claim | Dismissed — no timely claim; informal letter did not fairly apprise IRS and thus fails § 6511(a) requirement |
| Prematurity of 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013 refund suits under § 6532(a)(1) | Langley submitted Forms 843 in Oct/Nov 2015 and filed suit Feb 10, 2016; points to later IRS denial for 2009 | Government: suit filed before six-month waiting period elapsed and before IRS acted | Dismissed — suit premature; six-month waiting period not met before filing in Court of Federal Claims |
| Validity of informal-claim doctrine to cure form defects | Langley relies on informal claim doctrine and nonstandard correspondence to establish filing | Government: informal submissions must fairly apprise IRS of refund request and year(s) | Court: Informal-claim doctrine inapplicable because Langley’s 2006 letter did not identify 2004 or request a refund for that year |
| Jurisdiction over property/quiet-title claims and timeliness under § 2501 | Langley seeks removal of lien and accounting from Ms. Green | Government: dispute is between private parties (Green/Langley), not the United States; Tucker Act waives for money damages only and § 2501 six-year limitation bars claim | Dismissed — Court of Federal Claims lacks Tucker Act jurisdiction over private property dispute; claims time-barred (>10 years) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferreiro v. United States, 350 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (standard of review for jurisdictional dismissal)
- Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (pleading-stage inferences for motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (court may consider evidence beyond pleadings for jurisdictional facts)
- Estes Express Lines v. United States, 739 F.3d 689 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction by preponderance)
- United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1980) (sovereign immunity bars suit except where U.S. consents)
- United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. 1 (2008) (statutory prerequisites for tax refund suits under IRC § 7422)
- Computervision Corp. v. United States, 445 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (informal-claim doctrine requires that submissions fairly apprise IRS of refund claim)