Nix El v. Internal Revenue Service
233 F. Supp. 3d 65
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Jeffrey B. Nix El alleges the IRS improperly denied or rescinded income tax refunds for tax years 2011 and 2014 and seeks over $1.6 million plus injunctive relief.
- For 2011, Nix El filed an amended return in December 2014 and alleges he never received the refund; he sent inquiries in 2015 that received only automated acknowledgements.
- For 2014, Nix El alleges a refund was electronically deposited in June 2015 but was returned by his credit union on July 1, 2015 at the IRS’s direction; he received no substantive explanation.
- Nix El sued the Internal Revenue Service in the District of Columbia on March 7, 2016 asserting constitutional, treaty, oath-of-office, and fiduciary-duty claims (among others), but the core claim is wrongful withholding of refunds cognizable under tax refund statutes.
- The IRS moved to dismiss, arguing (inter alia) that the United States (not the IRS) is the proper defendant and that venue is improper in D.C.; Nix El requested leave to amend to name the United States.
- The Court accepted Nix El’s factual allegations for purposes of the motion, granted leave to amend to substitute the United States as defendant, dismissed claims against the IRS, and transferred the case to the District of Maryland (Nix El’s residence) for lack of proper venue in D.C.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper defendant for tax refund/collection claims | Nix El sued the IRS (named agency) | The United States, not the IRS, is the proper defendant for tax refund and related claims | The Court: United States is the proper defendant; claims against the IRS dismissed; leave given to amend to name United States |
| Venue for tax refund action | Venue in D.C. is proper (cursorily asserted; cited §1391) | Venue for tax refund suits lies where the plaintiff resides under 28 U.S.C. §1402; Nix El resides in Bowie, MD | The Court: Venue improper in D.C.; transfer to the District of Maryland in the interest of justice |
| Leave to amend pro se complaint | Nix El requested amendment to add Commissioner, U.S., and AG’s office | IRS argued defects and improper party should be corrected | The Court: Grants leave to amend to substitute United States; declines to add Commissioner or AG’s office as separate defendants |
| Whether to dismiss vs transfer for improper venue | Nix El did not press dismissal alternative | IRS sought dismissal on multiple substantive grounds | The Court: Transfers to MD rather than dismissing to allow MD court to address remaining substantive issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Laukus v. United States, 691 F. Supp. 2d 119 (D.D.C. 2010) (IRS cannot be sued eo nomine; United States is proper defendant for tax claims)
- Spahr v. United States, 501 F. Supp. 2d 92 (D.D.C. 2007) (sovereign immunity bars suits against IRS except where Congress waived it narrowly)
- Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512 (1952) (executive departments may be sued in their own names only if Congress authorizes)
- Scott v. United States, 449 F.2d 1291 (8th Cir. 1971) (tax refund suits must be brought against United States and venue lies where plaintiff resides)
- Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (1962) (when venue is improper, transfer in the interest of justice is appropriate)
- Buchanan v. Manley, 145 F.3d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (district court may dismiss rather than transfer when claims have substantive defects)
- Darby v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 231 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2002) (court should accept plaintiff’s well-pled factual allegations on motion to dismiss)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se filings construed liberally)
- Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (district court's discretion under §1406(a) to dismiss or transfer improper venue cases)