Taylor v. United States, 19-765

Byron L. Taylor, proceeding pro se, sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims seeking $102,694.75, characterizing his claim as a "taking of plaintiff's assets without jurisdiction."
The complaint challenges IRS actions: liens filed against Taylor's Gallatin County, MT property (about $37,086.54) and application of later tax overpayments to penalties/interest for tax years 2010–2012.
Documents attached to the complaint indicate the IRS assessed penalties/interest after Taylor filed frivolous amended returns in 2014–2015.
The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1); Taylor’s response offered to dismiss if assets were returned or requested judgment instead.
The court applied Tucker Act jurisdictional principles and the federal "full payment" rule for tax refund claims, concluded it lacks jurisdiction over IRS collection and refund claims where assessed tax has not been fully paid, and dismissed the case without prejudice.
The court declined to transfer the case to a district court, noting Taylor’s pattern of frivolous tax-protester litigation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction over challenges to IRS liens and collection practices	Taylor contends IRS liens and collection actions unlawfully took his assets and seeks damages/judgment	The Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to review IRS lien/collection actions; such claims are barred from this forum	Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
Tax refund claim framed as a "taking" of assets	Taylor disputes liability for penalties/interest and styles his refund claim as a taking; seeks compensation equivalent to a refund	A refund action in this court requires full payment of the assessed tax first (the full-payment rule); IRS assessments are not a takings basis	Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Taylor did not satisfy the full‑payment rule

Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (full‑payment rule bars refund suit when assessed tax unpaid)
Shore v. United States, 9 F.3d 1524 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (historical explanation of the full‑payment rule)
Skillo v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 734 (Fed. Cl. 2005) (IRS assessments do not constitute a Fifth Amendment taking)
Alder Terrace, Inc. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (plaintiff bears the burden to establish jurisdiction)
McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1936) (burden of proof for jurisdictional facts)
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (U.S. 1974) (on a motion to dismiss courts assume complaint allegations true)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (abrogation noted in procedural context)
Roche v. U.S. Postal Serv., 828 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (lenient pleading standards applied to pro se litigants)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972) (pro se complaints entitled to liberal construction)