UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Tenth Circuit
Byron White Unitd States Courthouse
1823 Stout Street
Denver, Colorado 80294
(303) 844-3157
Patrick Fisher Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk Chief Deputy Clerk
May 15, 1996
TO: ALL RECIPIENTS OF THE CAPTIONED OPINION
RE: 95-4036 Chrisman v. IRS
April 26, 1996 by The Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones,
Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit
Please be advised of the following correction to the
captioned decision:
Attorney Anthony T. Sheehan’s name was spelled
incorrectly as Sheenan. The correct spelling is Sheehan.
Please make the correction to your copy.
Very truly yours,
Patrick Fisher, Clerk
Beth Morris
Deputy Clerk
PUBLISH
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 4/26/96
TENTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH CHRISMAN, et al. )
)
Plaintiffs-Appellants, )
)
) No. 95-4036
v. )
)
)
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL )
REVENUE, et al. )
)
Defendants-Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
(D.C. No. 94-C-0427-S)
Paul J. Young, Springville, Utah, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Anthony T. Sheehan, Attorney (Teresa E. McLaughlin, Attorney,
with him on the brief), United States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C., for the Defendants-Appellees.
Before KELLY, BARRETT, and JONES, Circuit Judges. *
JONES, Senior Circuit Judge.
*
The Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones, Senior Circuit Judge,
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
2
Plaintiffs appeal the district court's dismissal of their
challenge to the implementation of the Internal Revenue Code by
the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). The Plaintiffs clearly
lack standing to bring this action and likewise have not
presented a case or controversy. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court's grant of the United States' motion to dismiss.
I
On April 21, 1994, Plaintiff Joseph Chrisman and
approximately 5000 others from 50 states filed a complaint
(amended on July 22, 1994) in the United States District Court in
Utah, seeking to have their case certified as a class action and
alleging the IRS' failure to comply with various constitutional
and statutory requirements in its tax collection efforts.
Plaintiffs requested declaratory relief as to the proper
administration of the statutes and an injunction against
government collection of levies on seized property, until the
statutes were administered properly. Also, Plaintiffs 1)
requested a General Accounting Office ("GAO") audit of the IRS,
2) alleged the IRS issues summonses for improper purposes, and 3)
sought a declaratory judgment that the IRS could not compel
Plaintiffs to maintain records and that the IRS must respond
promptly to taxpayer inquiries.
On July 27, 1994, the government moved to dismiss the case
for lack of standing. On January 23, 1995, the district court
granted the government's motion and dismissed the case, finding
3
that Plaintiffs made only generalized allegations of IRS
misconduct, alleged no specific injuries to themselves, did not
present a case or controversy, and lack standing to mount
sweeping challenges to IRS' practices. Supp. Appendix at 36.
Plaintiffs appeal. Oddly, however, they do not directly
challenge the rulings of the district court, definitively assert
why they may have standing or may have presented a justiciable
case or controversy, or provide legal authority for their
position. Instead, they have presented the court with what
appears to be a pitiable regurgitation of the generalized
arguments introduced below. As Plaintiffs' arguments on appeal
are incapable of persuading the court on the question presented,
and the pleadings below are insufficient to vest the district
court with jurisdiction, we must affirm the district court's
dismissal of the case.
II
We think it is useful to set out the concept of standing
that leads us to our conclusion. "Standing is a question of law
for the court to determine," Motive Parts Warehouse v. Facet
Enters., 774 F.2d 380, 389 (10th Cir. 1985), "thus [the Court of
Appeals] reviews the district court's determination of standing
de novo." Gilbert v. Shalala, 45 F.3d 1391, 1393 (10th Cir.)
(citing Hackford v. Babbitt, 14 F.3d 1457, 1465 (10th Cir. 1994)
cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 49 (1995).
Under Article III of the Constitution, jurisdiction of
4
federal courts is limited to cases and controversies. U.S.
Const. art. III, §2. The doctrine of standing is an essential
part of the case-or-controversy requirement. See Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct 2130, 2136
(1992). Simply put, in order to have standing, "[a] plaintiff
must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's
allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the
requested relief." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984).
"[S]tanding to sue may not be predicated upon an interest . . .
which is held in common by all members of the public, because of
the necessarily abstract nature of the injury all citizens
share." Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War , 418
U.S. 208, 220 (1974); see also Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74.
Further, as a matter of course, even when a plaintiff is sincere
and motivated to pursue a case, the court cannot exercise
jurisdiction for generalized grievances, but must face a
tangible, personal, threatened interest. See Simon v. Eastern
Kentucky Welfare Rights Org. , 426 U.S. 26, 40, 96 S.Ct. 1917,
1925 (1976).
In this case, the Plaintiffs' attempt to invoke the
jurisdiction of the court falls far short of the standing
requirements. 1 We have carefully considered and weighed each of
1
Plaintiffs have not asserted "taxpayer standing." Even
so, such an assertion would fail. Under the limited exception
to the general bar on taxpayer challenges to decisions
concerning appropriations, in order to achieve standing, a
taxpayer must demonstrate a logical link between his status as
a taxpayer and the exercise of congressional power under the
taxing and spending clause of the Constitution, and a nexus
5
the arguments advanced by Plaintiffs with respect to the IRS, as
well as the relief sought by Plaintiffs. Despite Plaintiffs'
varied arguments and requests for relief, Plaintiffs' complaint
and brief fail to state the essential elements of injury,
traceability, or redressability. As the government has stated,
"[n]owhere does the complaint [or brief] identify any plaintiff
as having personally suffered from the alleged conduct complained
of . . . . The allegations of injuries it contains are remote
and conjectural." Government's Br. at 12. Plaintiffs assert the
existence of "[f]iles containing thousands of stories of common
abuse amongst the appellants." Plaintiffs' Br. at 2. Yet,
neither the district court nor this court has been presented with
a single concrete incident of a Plaintiff suffering from any of
the alleged conduct at issue.
Moreover, Plaintiffs' requests for relief in the form of
various declarations as to the proper administration of the IRC
are tantamount to requests for advisory opinions. Such requests
advocate a general interest, common to all citizens and do not
purport to redress any specific injuries Plaintiffs may have
suffered. The district court could not, and indeed this court
will not provide advisory opinions. See United States v.
Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 171, 94 S.Ct. 2940, 2943 (1974); Baker
v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 651, 702 (1962).
between his status as a taxpayer and the precise nature of the
constitutional infringement alleged. See Flast v. Cohen, 392
U.S. 83, 101, 88 S.Ct. 1943, 1953 (1968). The Plaintiffs have
not met this test.
6
Because the Plaintiffs manifestly lack standing to bring
this action, we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of
Plaintiffs' complaint.
7