Langley v. United States

• Decision Date: 03 February 2017
• Docket Number: No. 16-206 T,16-206 T
• Parties: GINA BRASHER LANGLEY, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Claims Court

GINA BRASHER LANGLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 16-206 T

United States Court of Federal Claims

February 3, 2017

ORIGINAL

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Income Tax Refund; Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; RCFC 12(b)(1); Failure to State A Claim; RCFC 12(b)(6); Untimely Filing; RCFC 12(g); I.R.C. §§ 6511(a), 6532(a), 7422(a).

Gina B. Langley, Neptune Beach, Fla., pro se.

Brian J. Sullivan, Attorney of Record, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, with whom were Caroline D. Ciraolo, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and David I. Pincus, Chief, Court of Federal Claims Section, and G. Robson Stewart, Assistant Chief, Court of Federal Claims Section, for defendant.

OPINION

CAMPBELL-SMITH, Chief Judge

This is primarily an income tax refund claim. Plaintiff, Gina Langley, brings her claim without counsel. Defendant is the Internal Revenue Service (defendant or IRS). Plaintiff seeks an income tax refund for five tax years, 2004, 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2013.¹ For 2004, Ms. Langley filed a joint income tax return with her then-husband, Barney Langley. For each of the remaining years, all of which were after the finalization of her divorce from Mr. Langley, Ms. Langley filed an individual income tax return.

Ms. Langley also brings a property-related claim in which she seeks to have the name of her ex-husband removed from the title to the former marital home, which is now

Page 2

her home. In addition, Ms. Langley asks this court to declare that Suzanne Green, Mr. Langley's divorce attorney, has no interest in her home. During the course of the Langleys' divorce proceeding in Florida, Ms. Green secured an attorney's charging lien on the marital home in response to Mr. Langley's non-payment of legal fees.

Defendant moved for the dismissal of plaintiff's income tax refund claims for four years—2004, 2011, 2012, and 2013—as well as her property claims, for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). With regard to Ms. Langley's tax refund claims for these four years, for varying reasons, defendant argues that each claim is untimely. As to Ms. Langley's property claims against her ex-husband and Ms. Green, defendant argues the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over such claims. For plaintiff's income tax refund claim for 2009, defendant concedes jurisdiction, but argues that Ms. Langley has failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted, and requests dismissal under RCFC 12(b)(6).

As explained below, defendant's RCFC 12(b)(1) amended motion is GRANTED. Defendant's RCFC 12(b)(6) amended motion with regard to Ms. Langley's income tax refund claim for 2009 is DENIED. Ms. Langley's income tax refund claim for 2009 is dismissed sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction under RCFC 12(h)(3). Under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3), the complaint is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice.

I. Background²

A. Ms. Langley's Cases in Florida State Court

Throughout her claims, plaintiff makes reference to events stemming from her divorce proceedings initiated in 2004, as well as other litigation in the Florida state courts. A limited review of relevant events will assist in understanding plaintiff's complaint before this court.

In September 2004, plaintiff and her then-husband, Barney Joseph Langley, began divorce proceedings in Duval County, Florida, for which proceedings Mr. Langley was represented by Attorney Suzanne W. Green. App. 40-42,³ ECF No. 1-2 (Sept. 22, 2004 Attorney engagement letter between Mr. Langley and Ms. Green). Ms. Langley asserts that her divorce from Mr. Langley became final on June 21, 2006. Compl. ¶ 27, ECF No. 1.

Page 3

Mr. Langley apparently did not pay his legal fees, and with his consent, Ms. Green sought an attorney's charging lien on property owned, at least in part, by Mr. Langley. App. 29 ¶ 6 (Consent Motion for Charging Lien and Motion to Determine Amount of and to Enforce Charging Lien, In re: The Marriage of Gina B. Langley, Wife, and Barney Joseph Langley, Husband, No. 16-2004-DR-009042 (Fla. Circuit Ct. Duval Cty. Mar. 17, 2006)). On May 9, 2006, a Florida circuit judge granted Ms. Green her charging lien, App. 32-33, and Ms. Green recorded her lien on May 15, 2006, App. 26-27.

According to the "Attorney's Judgment and Amended Charging Lien Against Barney Langley," Ms. Green's attorney's charging lien was issued on the property located at 700 Oak Street, Neptune Beach, Florida. App. 26-27. ("By Court Order dated the 9th of May, 2006 and recorded . . . [in] Duval County, Florida, an attorney's Charging Lien was granted against any and all real or personal property of Barney Langley, including but not limited to real property located at 700 Oak Street, Neptune beach, Florida 32266 . . . ."). According to contact information Ms. Langley provided to this court, 700 Oak Street is her current home. See Compl. 10. Plaintiff asserts that Ms. Green obtained her attorney's charging lien "without [her] knowledge or consent." Compl. ¶ 2. Indeed, review of the Consent Motion prepared and filed by Ms. Green reveals no mention of Ms. Langley. See App. 29-30.

As a separate matter, plaintiff held an interest in property on which the mortgagor, Oceanside Bank, foreclosed. See Oceanside Bank v. Langley, No. 16-2009-CA-00-1429-XXXX-MA (Fla. Circuit Ct. Duval Cty. Jan. 7, 2010).⁴ In January 2010, a Certificate of Sale was entered, in which the Clerk of Court

certifies that notice of public sale of the property described in the final judgment . . . the property was offered for public sale . . . . The highest and best bid received for the property in the amount of 100.00 was submitted by Oceanside Bank to whom the property was sold.

App. 106.

The final judgment is not in the record, and the location of the property sold at auction is unclear. However, as Ms. Langley currently lives in the property located at 700 Oak Street, the court finds it likely that Oceanside Bank foreclosed on another

Page 4

property. In a list of marital assets the Langleys owned at the time of their August 2004 separation, they showed two other properties, respectively located at 314 Third Street and 605 10th Avenue, North with both addresses presumably located in Neptune Beach, Florida. Suppl. App. 130, ECF No. 8. The exact location of the foreclosed upon property, however, is immaterial to this court's decision.

B. Ms. Langley's Cases in the United States Tax Court

Prior to filing her income tax refund claims in this court, plaintiff filed two separate actions in the United States Tax Court, one for tax year 2004, and one for tax years 2006, 2008, 2009, and 2010. As explained infra Part I.E, neither case precludes the filing of Ms. Langley's complaint in this court.

1. Income Tax Year 2004 - Section 6015(f) Claim

In November 2012, Ms. Langley filed a petition in the United States Tax Court seeking relief under 26 U.S.C. (Internal Revenue Code, hereafter I.R.C.) § 6015(f) (2012) for income tax years 2004 through 2010. See Langley v. Comm'r, No. 27396-12 (T.C. Nov. 12, 2014) (Order of Dismissal), aff'd per curiam, 612 F. App'x 585 (11th Cir. 2015), cert denied, 136 S. Ct. 840 (2016). Section 6015(f) addresses relief from joint and several liability on a jointly filed return, otherwise known as innocent spouse relief. Because Ms. Langley filed a joint income tax return for tax year 2004 only, that is the sole year for which she could have qualified for relief under section 6015(f). See Langley, No. 27396-12, at 1, 3. The Tax Court dismissed Ms. Langley's petition for lack of jurisdiction, as it was not timely filed. Id. at 3.

2. Income Tax Years 2006, 2008, 2009, and 2010 - Section 6330(d) Claim

In June 2013, the IRS sent plaintiff a "Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330" for four tax years, 2006, 2008, 2009, and 2010. See Suppl. App. 112-116. Section 6330(d)(1) provides that a "person may . . . petition the Tax Court for review of such determination." The IRS informed plaintiff that if she wanted to "dispute this determination in court, [she] must file a petition with the United States Tax Court within 30 days from the date of this letter," Suppl. App. at 67, which Ms. Langley did on July 24, 2013, id. at 104-111 (Petition).

In January 2015, the Tax Court issued its decision. See Langley v. Comm'r, 109 T.C.M. (CCH) 1050, No. 17267-13L, 2015 WL 392980 (Jan. 13, 2015). According to the Tax Court, the IRS issued a supplemental Notice of Determination in November 2014, in which the IRS stated that there were no outstanding balances due for tax years 2008 and 2010; thus the court dismissed those claims as moot. See Langley, 2015 WL

Page 5

392980, at *5. But the Tax Court sustained the proposed levy to collect unpaid balances for the remaining tax years, 2006 (for $121.48 due) and 2009 (for $3,374.96 due). See id.

C. Ms. Langley's Case Filings In This Court

1. Original Complaint

Plaintiff filed her complaint on February 10, 2016, to which she attached 156 pages of supporting documents.⁵ See Compl., ECF Nos. 1 ("original complaint"), 1-2 ("appendix"). Plaintiff requested three forms of relief, including one tax refund claim and two property claims. Ms. Langley's requests are included below.

Tax Refund Claim

Petitioner most respectfully request[s] this Court order the IRS [to] refund the federal taxes due to Petitioner that totals $51,0683.84 (A pages 15 through 23) plus interest as claimed in Petitioner's Petition served to the government on 11-9-15 USSC in Petitioner's statement of the case 15-6929 (A pages 4 through 14) that the government waived it[]s right to oppose on 11-23-15. (A page two).

Compl. 9 (second request for relief). The internal citations are to documents attached to the complaint, and the reference to the U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 15-6929 is a reference to Ms. Langley's innocent spouse relief claim for tax year 2004 before the Tax Court, for which she ultimately sought certiorari to the...