Todd Hebert v. United States
114 Fed. Cl. 590
Fed. Cl.2014Background
- Plaintiff Todd Hebert (pro se) failed to file 2006 and 2007 tax returns; IRS issued notices of deficiency, assessed taxes, interest and penalties, and began levying his wages. He still owes amounts for both years.
- Hebert sued in the Court of Federal Claims seeking return of amounts levied and $1,000,000 in damages, alleging constitutional, statutory, regulatory, and criminal violations by the IRS.
- The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (RCFC 12(b)(1)) and alternatively for failure to state a claim (RCFC 12(b)(6)).
- The Government argued (inter alia) that Hebert had not paid his tax liabilities in full or filed a timely administrative refund claim (preconditions to a §7422 refund suit), that his damages theories relied on non-money-mandating sources, and that tort claims and §7433 claims belong in district court.
- The Court found it lacked jurisdiction on multiple grounds and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ability to bring tax refund suit in CFC | Hebert sought refund of levied amounts | Hebert did not pay assessed taxes in full or file an administrative refund claim | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (preconditions unmet) |
| Suit under 26 U.S.C. §7433 (civil damages for improper collection) | IRS engaged in deceitful/fraudulent collection; seeks damages | §7433 claims sound in tort and belong exclusively in district court | Dismissed—CFC lacks jurisdiction over tort §7433 claims |
| Due process / Fifth Amendment claim | IRS procedures violated due process; seeks money relief | Due process does not mandate payment; takings inapplicable to alleged unauthorized IRS wrongdoing | Dismissed—no money-mandating source; claims sound in tort if unauthorized conduct |
| Constitutional (Fourth/Thirteenth) and other statutory claims | Various constitutional and statutory violations support money relief | These provisions do not mandate payment of money; no private money-mandating cause of action cited | Dismissed—no money-mandating source; CFC lacks jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (establishing that Tucker Act requires a separate money-mandating source)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (money-mandating requirement under Tucker Act)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act does not create substantive cause of action)
- Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (tax refund prerequisite: payment in full)
- Ledford v. United States, 207 F.3d 1378 (prerequisites for §7422 refund suits)
- Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (CFC lacks jurisdiction over claims sounding in tort)
- Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (limitations on Tucker Act jurisdiction)