Case: 20-1032 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 04/07/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MARK LOUIS SANDERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2020-1032
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:19-cv-01138-EJD, Senior Judge Edward J.
Damich.
______________________
Decided: April 7, 2020
______________________
MARK LOUIS SANDERS, Trafford, PA, pro se.
RICHARD L. PARKER, Tax Division, United States De-
partment of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appel-
lee. Also represented by BRUCE R. ELLISEN, RICHARD E.
ZUCKERMAN.
______________________
Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK and O’MALLEY, Circuit
Judges.
Case: 20-1032 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 04/07/2020
2 SANDERS v. UNITED STATES
PER CURIAM.
Mark Louis Sanders appeals an order from the Court
of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his com-
plaint. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On August 5, 2019, Sanders filed a complaint in the
Claims Court alleging that the United States had imposed
taxes on him without jurisdiction. On September 10, 2019,
the Claims Court, interpreting Sanders’ complaint as a tax
refund suit, dismissed Sanders’ complaint for failing to al-
lege facts necessary to establish the Claims Court’s tax re-
fund jurisdiction. Sanders filed this timely appeal. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
DISCUSSION
“We review the Claims Court’s decision to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction de novo.” Campbell v. United States,
932 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “We may affirm the
[Claims Court’s] dismissal on any ground supported by the
record.” Wyandot Nation v. United States, 858 F.3d 1392,
1397 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
The Claims Court “can take cognizance only of those
[claims] which by the terms of some act of Congress are
committed to it.” Hercules Inc. v. United States, 516 U.S.
417, 423 (1996) (alteration in original) (quoting Thurston
v. United States, 232 U.S. 469, 475 (1914)). On appeal,
Sanders argues that this is not a tax suit. However, Sand-
ers points to no other statute that would confer jurisdiction
to the Claims Court over his action.
There is no jurisdiction over this action as a tax refund
suit. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1), “[a] taxpayer seeking a
refund of taxes erroneously or unlawfully assessed or col-
lected may bring an action against the Government either
in United States district court or in the United States
Court of Federal Claims.” United States v. Clintwood
Case: 20-1032 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 04/07/2020
SANDERS v. UNITED STATES 3
Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. 1, 4 (2008). However, to
bring a suit for illegally collected taxes, the taxpayer seek-
ing a refund must “comply with tax refund procedures set
forth in the [Internal Revenue] Code.” Id. “These princi-
ples [also] are fully applicable to claims of unconstitutional
taxation.” Id. at 9.
On this record, we see no error in the district court’s
finding that Sanders has not alleged “any evidence that he
has pre-paid the principal tax deficiency—the first prereq-
uisite to tax-refund jurisdiction.” Sanders v. United States,
145 Fed. Cl. 37, 38 (2019) (citing Shore v. United States,
9 F.3d 1524, 1527 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
The Claims Court correctly found that “Sanders has
not established tax refund jurisdiction, or any other basis
for his suit.” Id. We conclude that the Claims Court’s dis-
missal of Sanders’ complaint must be
AFFIRMED