Martinez v. United States
| Decision Date | 25 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 13-107 T,13-107 T |
| Parties | OLGA E. MARTINEZ, Pro Se Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Claims Court |
Tax; Refund Claim; 26 U.S.C.
§ 6511(a) (2006); 26 U.S.C.
§ 6511(b)(2)(A) (2006); Suspension
of Statute of Limitations Due to
Financial Disability under 26 U.S.C.
§ 6511(h) (2006); Revenue Procedure
99-21, 1999-1 C.B. 960; RCFC
12(b)(1); Whether Plaintiff Followed
Required Procedure to Prove She
Was Financially Disabled.
Olga E. Martinez, Cicero, IL, pro se.
Gregory S. Knapp, United States Department of Justice, with whom were Kathyn Keneally, Assistant Attorney General, and David I. Pincus, Chief, Court of Federal Claims Section, Washington, DC, for defendant.
This matter is before the court on defendant's motion to dismiss brought primarily under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of FederalClaims (RCFC).1 Defendant asserts that plaintiff's tax refund claim is time-barred by 26 U.S.C. § 6511 (2006). Ms. Olga E. Martinez, proceeding pro se, has offered no legal authority that would counter defendant's challenge to her claim. On the facts before the court, defendant's motion is granted and plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court notes, however, that dismissal for lack of jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1) is without prejudice.
For the "2005 tax year, plaintiff had an assessed tax liability of $7,298 and withholding payments totaling $10,536, resulting in a tax overpayment of $3,238." Def.'s Mot. at 2 (citing Def.'s Mot. Ex. 1 at A-2.) Ms. Martinez did not file a 2005 tax year return with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) until March 20, 2011, claiming that she was due a refund of $4457. Id.; see also id. Ex. 2 at A-5. According to defendant, plaintiff made an error in calculating her 2005 taxes (substituting $6079 for $7298 for the amount of taxes owed for tax year 2005), resulting in the discrepancy between the IRS's calculation of a $3238 tax overpayment and the $4457 amount requested as a refund by Ms. Martinez. In any case, plaintiff seeks a $3238 judgment in her suit in this court, see Compl. at 1, although her subsequent communications with defendant's counsel appear to have convinced her, incongruously, that the "actual refund" she is owed is $4457. Pl.'sResp. at 1 ( ), 3 ("Per Mr. Knapp, actual refund should be for $4457.00 rather than $3238.00."). The court need not resolve this apparent discrepancy, but notes that the government's position, and the position of defendant's counsel Mr. Gregory Knapp, is that plaintiff's tax overpayment for tax year 2005 was $3238, not $4457. Def.'s Mot. at 2, Ex. 1 at A-2; Def.'s Reply at 3 n.3.
The court reserves its review of the statutory framework for determining whether a tax refund claim is filed too late for the analysis section of this opinion. As a factual matter, the complaint asserts that Ms. Martinez did not file her tax refund claim earlier than 2011 because of illness. See Compl. at 1 (). In her response brief, plaintiff notes the following health problems that occurred either in 2005 or in the years preceding or following 2005: severe depression, suicidal ideation, alcoholism, a diagnosis of lupus, mental and physical illness, pneumonia and pleurisy. Pl.'s Resp. at 1. Plaintiff also notes that with the aid of a free clinic she was later able to turn her life around, get her lupus under control and get social security disability benefits. Id. Ms. Martinez also states that she seeks a tax refund for the 2005 tax year because she "needs this money to help pay medical bills." Compl. at 1.
After Ms. Martinez filed for a tax refund for the 2005 tax year, the IRS disallowed her claim as untimely, in either June or July of 2011. Def.'s Mot. Ex. 1 at A-2, Ex. 3 at A-10. Ms. Martinez appealed the disallowance of her refund claim to an IRS Appeals Office; no documentation as to the grounds of her appeal have been provided by the parties. It appears that the excuse of illness was presented by Ms. Martinez and that the appeals officer requested a physician's statement as proof of disabling illness. Id. Ex. 3 at A-10. There is no evidence that Ms. Martinez provided a physician's statement to the IRS; the appeals officer denied the appeal on February 8, 2012, closed her case and notified Ms. Martinez of her right to file suit in this court. Id.
Ms. Martinez filed her refund suit in this court on February 7, 2013 and paid a $350 filing fee which, she states, has caused her financial hardship. See Pl.'s Resp. at 2 (). Defendant has moved to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. Ms. Martinez was offered the opportunity to present a formal response brief to replace the letter she sent to defendant's counsel. Order of May 13, 2013. Having received nofurther filings from plaintiff, defendant's motion is ripe for a ruling by the court.
The court acknowledges that Ms. Martinez is proceeding pro se and is "not expected to frame issues with the precision of a common law pleading." Roche v. U.S. Postal Serv., 828 F.2d 1555, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Pro se plaintiffs are entitled to a liberal construction of their pleadings. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (). Accordingly, the court has examined the complaint and response brief thoroughly and has attempted to discern all of plaintiff's arguments.
Pursuant to the Tucker Act, the United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction "to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort." 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (2006). The Tucker Act, however, United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976) (citation omitted). A plaintiff coming before the United States Court of Federal Claims, therefore, must identify a separate provision of law conferring a substantive right for money damages against the United States. Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d 1091, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Testan, 424 U.S. at 398).
In the present case, plaintiff seeks a tax refund for overpayment in the amount of $3238 for the 2005 tax year. The Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over tax refund claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) (2006) and28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Foreman v. United States, 60 F.3d 1559, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1995). However, certain prerequisites must be met before a plaintiff may properly invoke this court's jurisdiction over tax refund claims.
First, a plaintiff must have satisfied 26 U.S.C. § 7422 (2006) which provides that: "No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary . . . ." 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). Second, a plaintiff must comply with 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a) which requires that a tax refund be filed within either: (1) three years from the date on which the return giving rise to the refund claim was filed; or (2) two years from the date on which the tax was paid, whichever is later. Together, § 7422(a) and § 6511(a) dictate that before a plaintiff may pursue a tax refund suit, he or she must file a claim for a refund from the IRS within the window of time prescribed by § 6511(a). See United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 602 (1990) ().
It is well-settled that satisfaction of these filing requirements is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in the Court of Federal Claims. Sun Chem. Corp. v. United States, 698 F.2d 1203, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1983) () (citations omitted); Stelco Holding Co. v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 101, 104 (1998) () (citations omitted). Strict compliance with § 6511(a)'s limitations period is essential because "[u]nder settled principles of sovereign immunity, the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit, save as it consents to be sued . . . and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit." Stelco Holding, 42 Fed. Cl. at 104 n.5 (citing Dalm, 494 U.S. at 608) (internal quotations omitted). As explained below, Ms. Martinez's refund claim is timely under § 6511(a).
Ms. Martinez filed her 2005 tax return, which also included her claim for refund, with the IRS on March 20, 2011. See Def.'s Mot. Ex. 1 at A-2 (showing...
To continue reading
Request your trial