Griffin v. United States
| Decision Date | 13 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-2307T |
| Parties | INEZ GRIFFIN, pro se, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Claims Court |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The plaintiff, Inez Griffin, acting pro se, filed this action against the United States on December 15, 2021. The plaintiff claims that the United States, acting through the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), unlawfully withheld her tax refund and violated a number of constitutional and statutory provisions.[1] The defendant has moved to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC") and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under RCFC 12(b)(6).
The Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim for a tax refund because the plaintiff has not alleged that she filed a claim for a tax refund with the IRS. Even if the Court had jurisdiction over that claim the Court would dismiss it under RCFC 12(b)(6). The Court also dismisses the plaintiff's claim arising under the takings clause of the fifth amendment of the U.S Constitution under RCFC 12(b)(6). The plaintiff's other claims fall outside of the Court's limited subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court grants the defendant's motion to dismiss. The plaintiff's claims for a tax refund are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), the plaintiff's takings claim is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(6), and the plaintiff's other constitutional and statutory claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1).
The plaintiff is a citizen of the United States. (Compl. at 3, 5.) She claims that she is entitled to economic stimulus payments and child tax credits for her son. (Id. at 3-4.) She alleges that she "do[es] not owe the IRS any taxes and ONLY filed as a non filer to receive the Economic Stimulus Payment that was and is due and owing to [her] for [her] minor child." (Id. at 8 (capitalization and punctuation in original).) She "receive[s] federal money and [has] filed taxes in the past." (Id.) Her complaint alleges that the IRS engaged in "actions of retaliation and corruption" by "repeated mailings of 60 day extensions letters." (Id.) The plaintiff has "no outstanding debt, credit cards or [mortgage] and as a result the credit agency they use cannot identify [her]." (Id.) The plaintiff visited the IRS office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, last year and allegedly verified her identity. (Id.)
The plaintiff alleges that she "has been suffering irreparable economic injury due to the fact that the defendants are unlawfully withholding her money," and that the defendant is "trying to force the Plaintiff to participate in the biometric involuntary program of Kantara Initiative, under the guise of digital identification." (Id. at 4.) The plaintiff claims that the defendant's actions violate the law and are causing her emotional distress and economic injury. (Id.)
The plaintiff also claims that the United States has violated the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. (Id. at 3, 12.) Additionally, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant has violated numerous statutes, including the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, 1986, 1988), the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. § 2674), and provisions of Title 18 of the U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242). (Id. at 7-8, 12-14.)
The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and monetary damages of $250, 000. (Id. at 14-15, 18.) She also requests a three-judge panel and a jury trial. (Id. at 1.)
After the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted, the defendant filed its motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The plaintiff responded to the defendant's motion. The defendant did not file a reply brief.
In her opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss, the plaintiff asserted that she has "repeatedly filed request for administrative review, audit request, personal complaints to the [IRS C]ommissioner personally via e-mail," and that she has not received a response to any of these from the IRS. (Pl.'s Resp. at 2.) The plaintiff argues that the money allegedly due to her is not a tax refund and contests the defendant's characterization of her claim as such. Instead, she claims the money is owed to her under laws enacted in 2020 and 2021 to respond to the financial distress attributable to the coronavirus pandemic.
In 2020 and 2021, in response to the pandemic, Congress provided three advance refunds of tax credits, colloquially referred to as "economic stimulus payments."
First, on March 27, 2020, Congress enacted the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act"), Pub. L. No. 116-136 § 2201(a), 134 Stat. 281, 335-37 (2020) (). The CARES Act provided that eligible individuals would receive an "advance refund" of the applicable tax credit of up to $1, 200 plus $500 for each qualifying child. 26 U.S.C. §§ 6428(a), 6428(f).
Second, on December 20, 2020, Congress enacted the COVID-related Tax Relief Act of 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-260, § 272(a), 134 Stat. 1182, 1965-71 (). Eligible individuals received an additional "advance refund" of the applicable tax credit of up to $600 per individual plus $600 for each qualifying child. 26 U.S.C. §§ 6428A(a), 6428A(f).
Finally, on March 11, 2021, Congress enacted the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 ("ARPA"), Pub. L. No. 117-2, § 9601(a), 135 Stat. 4, 138-42 (). Under the ARPA, eligible individuals received an "advance refund" of the applicable tax credit of up to $1, 400 plus $1, 400 for each qualifying dependent. 26 U.S.C. §§ 6428B(b), 6428B(f).
Under the structure of these advance refund tax credits, the IRS estimated the amount of the recovery rebate due to each taxpayer based on past filings and prepaid that amount. See id. §§ 6428(f)(2), 6428A(f)(2), 6428B(g)(2). When a taxpayer filed a return for 2020 or 2021, the IRS determined the correct amount of the tax credit due to the taxpayer and paid any unpaid amount of the credit still owed to the taxpayer. See id. §§ 6428(e)(1), 6428A(e)(1), 6428B(f)(1). Taxpayers who did not receive the stimulus payments despite being eligible could receive the tax credits due to them by filing a tax return.
Additionally, under the ARPA, Congress expanded the tax credit for 2021 for each minor child in three ways: the credit was made fully refundable; the maximum age for qualifying children was increased from 17 to 18; and the maximum amount of the credit was increased to $3, 600 for each qualifying child. See Pub. L. No. 117-2, § 9611, 135 Stat. at 144-45 (codified as amended at 26 U.S.C. § 24(i)).
Congress also provided in the ARPA that eligible individuals could receive one-half of the estimated amount of the 2021 child tax credit in advance. Id. § 9611(b)(1), 135 Stat. at 145-48 (). This advance-refund structure resembles the structure of the economic stimulus payments: the IRS calculates who is eligible for the credit and pays half of the credit in advance, but taxpayers will be entitled to the full credit due to them upon the filing of a tax return for the year 2021. See 26 U.S.C. § 24(j).
The IRS created online portals for individuals who did not file tax returns in the past to provide the necessary information so the IRS could issue them advance refunds for their economic stimulus payments and child tax credits.[3]
To determine subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1), the "court must accept as true all undisputed facts asserted in the plaintiff's complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff." Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011). When a plaintiff's jurisdictional facts are challenged, only those factual allegations that the government does not controvert are accepted as true. Shoshone Indian Tribe of Wind River Rsrv. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1021, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The court is not "'restricted to the face of the pleadings'" in resolving disputed jurisdictional facts. Id. (quoting Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Watkins, 11 F.3d 1573, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1235 (1994)). Courts may review evidence outside the pleadings. Id.
The plaintiff has the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Trusted Integration, Inc., 659 F.3d at 1163. If a court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim, RCFC 12(h)(3) requires dismissal of the claim.
Under RCFC 12(b)(6), dismissal "is appropriate when the facts asserted by the claimant do not entitle him to a legal remedy." Lindsay v. United States, 295 F.3d 1252, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The court must both accept as true a complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009), and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, Sommers Oil Co. v. United States, 241 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To avoid dismissal under RCFC 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege facts "plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)" a showing that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than...
To continue reading
Request your trial