NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition
is not citable as precedent. It is a public record.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
06-5002
NAILA M. QURESHI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________________
DECIDED: September 6, 2006
__________________________
Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, PROST, Circuit Judge, and ELLIS, District Judge.∗
PER CURIAM.
Naila M. Qureshi appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Federal
Claims finding that the government properly assessed her with $1,410 of additional tax
liability for the 2002 tax year and dismissing her other claims for lack of jurisdiction.
Qureshi v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 783 (2005). We affirm.
∗
Honorable T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge, United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Qureshi filed her tax return for 2002 claiming a refund of $3,744.01. The
Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) conducted an audit of her return and determined that
she was subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax which reduced the amount of her
overpayment by $1,410.00, resulting in a refund of $2,334.01. See Qureshi, 67 Fed. Cl.
at 784-85. Ms. Qureshi filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims for a refund of her
overpayment, which she insisted was the entire $3,744. In addition, Ms. Qureshi’s
complaint sought interest on the overpayment and damages incurred by her as a result
of the IRS’s handling of her 2002 return.
Ms. Qureshi and the government filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In
the government’s motion, it conceded that it owed Ms. Qureshi $2,334 plus applicable
interest.1 Qureshi, 67 Fed. Cl. at 785. The court therefore determined that it had only
two remaining issues before it: 1) whether the government properly calculated Ms.
Qureshi’s taxes, including the Alternative Minimum Tax, resulting in a reduction of her
refund by $1,410; and 2) whether Ms. Qureshi was entitled to damages based on the
IRS’s handling of her tax return. On the Alternative Minimum Tax issue, the court
granted the government’s motion for summary judgment. Regarding the second issue,
the court dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction. Having found for the government
on these issues, the court entered a final judgment in favor of the defendant.
Ms. Qureshi appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
1
The government now asserts that this portion of the overpayment has
been refunded to Ms. Qureshi.
06-5002 2
DISCUSSION
Ms. Qureshi argues that the Court of Federal Claims erred in both holdings: 1) in
its calculation based on the Alternative Minimum Tax, and 2) that she could not recover
damages due to the IRS’s handling of her return. In addition, she argues that the court
erred by not granting summary judgment in her favor when she and the government
both filed motions for summary judgment. We address these arguments in turn.
With regard to the IRS’s recalculation of her taxes, Ms. Qureshi first argues that
she was not subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax because she chose not to deduct
her state and local income taxes for 2002. We reject this argument. The Alternative
Minimum Tax, described at 26 U.S.C. §§ 55-59, operates to provide a taxpayer with a
“tentative minimum tax” for the taxable year. Ms. Qureshi’s tentative minimum tax is
based on her “alternative minimum taxable income” which equals her taxable income
with certain adjustments. Her total tax due is solely based on this alternative minimum
taxable income, which does not adjust for state and local income taxes. Therefore, the
amount she owes due to the Alternative Minimum Tax, the “tentative minimum tax,” in
no way depends on whether she chose to take a deduction for state and local income
taxes for purposes of computing her regular tax liability.
We next consider whether the IRS properly recalculated Ms. Qureshi’s taxes for
2002 during its audit. The Court of Federal Claims found that this calculation complied
with the applicable statutes, resulting in tentative minimum taxes of $7,969. The
additional liability she owed was the difference between the tentative minimum tax
($7,969) and the amount of regular tax she reported as owing ($6,559), or $1,410. Ms.
Qureshi has not raised any genuine issue of material fact that the IRS’s calculations do
06-5002 3
not properly reflect the taxes owed for her 2002 tax year. We therefore affirm the Court
of Federal Claims’ grant of summary judgment in favor of the government.
Ms. Qureshi describes her other claims as dealing primarily “with the role of the
Tax Payer Advocate Agency in serving as the intermediary for clarification regarding an
audit process.” She states that the IRS failed to comply with the IRS Manual when an
employee with the agency provided her with assistance regarding the audit process. In
that circumstance, she argues that 26 U.S.C. § 7811(a)(3) requires that any assistance
provided by the IRS should favor her. The statute relied on by Ms. Qureshi for this
proposition, however, permits the National Taxpayer Advocate to issue a Taxpayer
Assistance Order providing relief to a taxpayer upon a finding that the taxpayer “is
suffering or about to suffer a significant hardship as a result of the manner in which the
internal revenue laws are being administered by the Secretary.” Id. at § 7811(a)(1). If
an IRS employee is not following proper administrative guidance, the National Taxpayer
Advocate is required to construe factors regarding whether to issue a Taxpayer
Assistance Order in the manner most favorable to the taxpayer. Id. at § 7811(a)(3).
Thus, the statute merely confers the IRS with discretion to provide a taxpayer with relief
under certain circumstances. See Demes v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 365, 373 (Ct. Cl.
2002). In light of the discretion given the IRS to provide relief under 26 U.S.C. § 7811,
we conclude that this provision does not aid Ms. Qureshi here. Even if she was given
incorrect information or an IRS employee failed to comply with the IRS Manual, the
statute merely permits the IRS, at its discretion, to provide relief if the taxpayer is
suffering significant hardship. The IRS did not exercise that discretion here and it is
unclear from the record whether Ms. Qureshi even applied for this form of relief.
06-5002 4
Ms. Qureshi also argues that the violation of the IRS Manual resulted in a
prolonged audit process with the IRS. Because her 2002 tax overpayment was withheld
during this entire period, she claims she suffered immense hardship resulting in various
injuries such as property losses due to rental foreclosures and inability to repay
creditors resulting in poor credit scores. We agree with the Court of Federal Claims that
it lacked jurisdiction to hear these tort claims.
Finally, Ms. Qureshi’s complaint can be read to appeal the Court of Federal
Claims’ failure to grant summary judgment in her favor when her motion and the
government’s motion were filed at the same time. A motion for summary judgment is a
request for the court to find that on certain issues, there is no genuine issue of material
fact, such that a reasonable fact finder can only find for one party. The Court of Federal
Claims granted the government’s motion for summary judgment with respect to Ms.
Qureshi’s Alternative Minimum Tax claims. Further, the court found that it lacked
jurisdiction over Ms. Qureshi’s claims for damages due to the IRS’s processing of her
2002 return. By resolving all of the issues in Ms. Qureshi’s complaint, the trial court’s
opinion stands as an implicit rejection of Ms. Qureshi’s summary judgment arguments.
See Billings v. United States, 322 F.3d 1328, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (affirming implicit
denial of motion for summary judgment).
Because we agree with the findings of the Court of Federal Claims granting
summary judgment in favor of the government and implicitly denying Ms. Qureshi’s
motion for summary judgment, we affirm.
No costs.
06-5002 5