495 F. App'x 44
Fed. Cir.2012Background
- Smith, pro se, challenges dismissal of his refund suit in the Court of Federal Claims seeking monies for 1992–1996 and 2000–2006 taxes.
- Smith and Hook previously litigated 1992–1996 deficiencies in Tax Court; Tax Court dismissed for lack of prosecution and sanctions were imposed by the Tenth Circuit for frivolous appeal.
- Smith and Hook later pursued bankruptcy and an adversary proceeding to relitigate tax liabilities; proceedings were dismissed; Smith’s appeal was dismissed for failure to pay sanctions; Hook settled with the IRS.
- In 2007, Smith and Hook filed Tax Court petitions for 2001–2005 deficiencies; IRS showed no amounts were collected for those years subject to the petition.
- On April 9, 2010, Smith filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims; the government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; CFC dismissed because of prior Tax Court petitions and failure to fully pay the 2006 deficiency.
- Appellant appeals, contending CFC erred in jurisdictional rulings, amendment/transfer rulings, discovery denial, and RCFC 60(b) relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CFC lacked jurisdiction under the Tucker Act | Smith | Smith's actions barred by §6512(a) after Tax Court petitions | Yes; final dismissal affirmed due to §6512(a) preclusion |
| Whether the refund suit was proper given the full payment rule | Smith | Payment not shown; records support failure to satisfy full payment | Yes; dismissal affirmed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to prove payment |
| Whether §6015(e)(3) innocent spouse relief applies to the 2001–2005 years | Smith | Innocent spouse relief not applicable; spouse relief not admissible here | Yes; no jurisdiction under §6015(e)(3); relief denied |
| Whether denial of transfer under §1631 was an abuse of discretion | Smith | Transfer would not cure jurisdictional bars | Yes; no abuse; transfer denied |
| Whether denial of discovery and denial of RCFC 60(b) relief were proper | Smith | Discovery unnecessary to resolve jurisdictional issues; no extraordinary circumstances | Yes; discovery and RCFC 60(b) relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Schell v. United States, 589 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (de novo review for lack of jurisdiction)
- Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (full payment rule for refund suits)
- Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (U.S. 1960) (Tax Court petition precludes later refund suit for same year)
- Tex. Peanut Farmers v. United States, 409 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 requires jurisdictional viability)
- Solitron Devices v. United States, 862 F.2d 846 (11th Cir. 1989) (statutory bars on refunds and jurisdictional limits)
- Renda Marine, Inc. v. United States, 509 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for leave to amend)