_ F'LED
S-' ” l 3 2017
In the United States Court of Federal Claims U o 00un OF
l EDERAL CLA|MS
No. 17~537'1`
(Filed: September 13, 201 7)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
***=!¢**=l¢=l=*$=!=-‘l=>i=>!==l==l=>l=*=i=*=i=**=i=*=i==l=*=f==i==l==f=*$$=!=*
ERlCA B. BROMAGEN, *
=i=
Plaintiff, * RCFC lZ(e); Motion for a More Definite
* Staternent', B E Plaintiff; Tax Refund;
v. * Wrongful Levy; 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a);
* Clintwood Elkhorn Minina Co.; Pennoni;
Tl-IE UNITED STATES, * RCFC 9(m)
>|=
Defendant. *
*’i=$$*=i=*$*$$*=!¢***=i=*****>l=*=i¢$=l¢=!¢$*=i=*>l<*=l=**
ORI}ER
On September 8, 2017, defendant in the above-captioned case filed a motion for a more
definite statement pursuant to Rule lZ(e) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal
Clairns (“RCFC”). Defendant asserts that plaintiff, proceeding m Y, filed her lawsuit as a tax
refund case, but did not include in her complaint the information required by RCFC 9(m) for
such cases. lt therefore requests that the court direct plaintiff to file a more definite statement
containing the required information
As an initial matter, the court notes that although the cover sheet that plaintiff submitted
With her complaint indicates that the nature of plaintiff s lawsuit Was “Tax - Income, lndividual,”
plaintiff does not allege in her complaint that she is seeking a refund of income taxes that she
paid to the Internal Revenue Service. Rather, plaintiff alleges:
On April 17, 2013, the lnternal Revenue Service took funds in Plaintiff"s account
at Bank of the West Bank in Cheyenne, Wyorning in the amount of $88,833.64 to
set off against an asserted tax obligation of Plaintiff’ s parents. These funds
belong to Plaintiff`, and Were and are in no Way responsible to set off against any
obligation of Plaintiff’ s parents.
Compl. 1 4. Plaintiff therefore “requests that this court issue an order to the Internal Revenue
Service to restore the funds taken from Plaintiff"s bank account to Plaintif .” § 1l 5. In short,
plaintiff alleges that the lnternal Revenue Service has Wrongfully levied the funds contained in
her bank account
The fact that plaintiff is not seeking a refund of the income taxes that she paid to the
lnternal Revenue Service does not mean, however, that her claim for the return of funds is not
subject to the same requirements as a tax refund suit. Section 7422 of the Internal Revenue Code
provides:
No suit or proceeding shali 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, Lof
any sum alleged to have been excessive or in anv manner Wronafullv collected,
until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed With the [Internal Revenue
Service], according to the provisions of law in that regard, and the regulations . , .
established in pursuance thereof
26 U.S.C. § 7422(a) (20]6) (emphasis added). The United States Supreme Court has held that
this statute should be interpreted expansively United States v. Ciintvvood Elkhorn Mining Co.,
553 U.S. l, 7, 13 (20{)8). Thus, an individualJ such as plaintiff, Who seeks the return of funds
ievied by the Internal Revenue Service (“any sum alleged to have been t . . vvrongfuiiy collected”)
must comply With the requirements for filing tax refund suits. Accord Pennoni v. United States,
86 Fed. Ci. 351, 359 (2009) (“[T]he Supreme Court also specifically addressed the breadth of the
‘any sum’ language in section 7422 and held that . . . the taxpayers Were still required to file
refund claims because section 7422(a) not only applies to suits for the recovery of ‘any internal
revenue tax,’ but also ‘goes on to apply its prohibition against suit absent a proper refund claim
to any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner Wrongfully collected.”’ (quoting
Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. at 13))
The requirements for filing a tax refund suit in the United States Court of Federai Clairns
include compliance With RCFC 9(m), Wbich provides:
Tax Refund Claim. ln pleading a claim for a tax refund, a party must include:
(1) a copy of the claim for refund, and
(2) a statement identifying
(A) the tax year(s) for Which a refund is sought;
(B) the amount, date, and place of each payment to be refunded;
(C) the date and place the return Was filed, if any;
(D) the name, address, and identification number (under seal) of
the taxpayer(s) appearing on the return;
(E) the date and place the claim for refund Was filed; and
(F) the identification number (under seal) of each piaintiff, if
different from the identification number of the taxpayer
As defendant notes, plaintiff did not provide the information required by this rule. Specifically,
plaintiff did not submit a copy of the ciaim for refund that she filed With the lnternal Revenue
Serviee pursuant to RCFC 9(m)(l) or a statement containing ali of the information described in
_2”
RCFC 9(m)(2). Without the information required by RCFC 9(m), defendant Will not be able to
appropriately respond to plaintiffs allegations
Accordingly, for good cause shoWn, the court GRANTS defendant’s motion for a more
definite statement Plaintiff shall file the more definite statement-Which shall include the
information described in RCFC 9(m), by no later than Wednesday, October 4, 2017.
Defendant shall than have until no later than Monday, December 4, 2017, to respond to
plaintiff’ s complaint
WIQW KOZ{@//- (.L{//
YRET M. SWEENE
IT IS SO ()RDERED.
Judge