Case: 19-2422 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 05/13/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TAD ALAN PATTERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2019-2422
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:19-cv-00843-CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow.
______________________
Decided: May 13, 2020
______________________
TAD ALAN PATTERSON, Eugene, OR, pro se.
MARION E.M. ERICKSON, Tax Division, United States
Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-ap-
pellee. Also represented by MICHAEL J. HAUNGS, RICHARD
E. ZUCKERMAN.
______________________
Before PROST, Chief Judge, MAYER and DYK, Circuit
Judges.
Case: 19-2422 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 05/13/2020
2 PATTERSON v. UNITED STATES
PER CURIAM.
Tad Alan Patterson appeals a decision by the United
States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismiss-
ing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) assessed Mr.
Patterson with multiple tax liabilities spanning the period
from 2007 to 2012 and imposed liens on his property. In
March 2019, Mr. Patterson filed a petition with the United
States Tax Court, challenging the IRS’s assessment of
those taxes. The Tax Court dismissed his petition for lack
of jurisdiction.
On June 6, 2019, Mr. Patterson sued the United States
in the Claims Court. The complaint alleged that the
United States had “took [Mr. Patterson]’s assets without
jurisdiction,” apparently complaining about the govern-
ment-imposed liens, and sought $610,111.96 in damages.
On August 27, 2019, the Claims Court dismissed Mr.
Patterson’s complaint, holding that he had failed to allege
the facts necessary to establish the Claims Court’s tax re-
fund or Fifth Amendment taking jurisdiction. Mr. Patter-
son appeals, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(3). “We review the Claims Court’s decision to dis-
miss for lack of jurisdiction de novo.” Campbell v. United
States, 932 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
DISCUSSION
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)).
There is no jurisdiction over this action as a tax refund
suit. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1), “[a] taxpayer seeking a
Case: 19-2422 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 05/13/2020
PATTERSON v. UNITED STATES 3
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
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 Claims Court’s
finding that Mr. Patterson has “not provided evidence, or
even argued, that he has filed a claim for a refund with the
IRS for any of the six years in question.” Supp. App’x 7–8.
Nor do we see any error in the Claims Court’s holding that
“an imposition of taxes is not a taking for Fifth Amendment
purposes.” Id. at 8 (citing Commonwealth Edison Co. v.
United States, 271 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
Mr. Patterson complains that the Claims Court erred
in treating this as a tax case. Mr. Patterson alleges on ap-
peal that the government acted “knowingly and mali-
ciously” in imposing the liens in violation of the Fourth
Amendment. Appellant’s Br. 1. The Claims Court also
lacks jurisdiction over Fourth Amendment fraudulent as-
sessment and fraudulent taking claims because they are
actions allegedly “grounded upon fraud” that “sound in
tort.” Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir.
1997); see 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (limiting the jurisdiction
of the Claims Court to “cases not sounding in tort”).
Because Mr. Patterson identifies no other basis for the
Claims Court to exercise jurisdiction over his claim, the
Claims Court’s dismissal of his complaint is
AFFIRMED