Case: 20-1473 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 08/25/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JANICE SUE TAYLOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2020-1473
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:19-cv-01353-NBF, Senior Judge Nancy B. Fire-
stone.
______________________
Decided: August 25, 2020
______________________
JANICE SUE TAYLOR, Florence, AZ, pro se.
JANET A. BRADLEY, Tax Division, United States Depart-
ment of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee.
Also represented by JOAN I. OPPENHEIMER, RICHARD E.
ZUCKERMAN.
______________________
Before LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Case: 20-1473 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 08/25/2020
2 TAYLOR v. UNITED STATES
PER CURIAM.
Janice Sue Taylor appeals from a final decision of the
U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissing her complaint for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Taylor v. United States,
No. 19-1353-T, 2020 WL 983245 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 27, 2020).
Because we agree that the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction
over Taylor’s complaint, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 2010, Taylor was convicted on eight counts of tax
evasion and willful failure to file tax returns between 2003
and 2006. She was sentenced to 78 months of incarcera-
tion, which she has completed, and ordered to pay
$2,234,219 in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS).
In 2019, Taylor filed a complaint in the Claims Court, 1
seeking $15 million for the government’s taking of her as-
sets “maliciously and with full knowledge . . . without ju-
risdiction to do so.” Complaint at 1, Taylor v. United
States, No. 19-1353-T (Fed. Cl. Sept. 5, 2019). In Taylor’s
view, the government failed to comply with I.R.C. §§ 6212
and 6213 and therefore lacked entitlement to charge her
with tax evasion or to collect taxes from her. Taylor also
sought damages for fraud or unlawful imprisonment.
The Claims Court dismissed all counts of Taylor’s com-
plaint for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, the court dis-
missed Taylor’s claims based on the Internal Revenue Code
because its jurisdiction to hear such tax cases is limited to
actions seeking the refund of taxes, penalties, and interest
1 Taylor also sought relief in other forums, including
the United States Tax Court. Relevant here, in 2018, Tay-
lor filed a petition in the Tax Court, also challenging the
IRS’s failure to comply with I.R.C. §§ 6212 and 6213, but
that petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Case: 20-1473 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 08/25/2020
TAYLOR v. UNITED STATES 3
paid to the government. Taylor’s unlawful imprisonment
and fraud claims were dismissed because they are tort
claims outside the jurisdiction of the Claims Court.
Taylor appealed, and we have jurisdiction over the
Claims Court’s decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
DISCUSSION
We review the Claims Court’s decision regarding its ju-
risdiction without deference because a determination of the
court’s jurisdiction is a question of law. Hanlin v. United
States, 214 F.3d 1319, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
In this appeal, Taylor argues that her due process
rights were violated because the government failed to com-
ply with I.R.C. §§ 6212 and 6213 in the proceedings leading
to her conviction. According to Taylor, in dismissing her
Tax Court action, the government “agreed” that it had no
jurisdiction over her from 2000 to 2018 because it failed to
send required notices. Reply Br. 4. She maintains that she
is not seeking a refund and that her claim is a specialized
one based on I.R.C. §§ 6212 and 6213 that falls within the
Claims Court’s jurisdiction. Reply Br. 2.
The government responds that I.R.C. §§ 6212 and 6213
are not money-mandating statutes and cannot provide ju-
risdiction over Taylor’s claims in the Claims Court. For
Taylor’s other claims, the government submits that they
are either tort claims or Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment
claims outside of the Claims Court’s jurisdiction.
We agree with the government. The Tucker Act is the
primary statute conferring tax jurisdiction on the Claims
Court. See Taylor v. United States, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359
(Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (2000)). But
the Tucker Act is only a jurisdictional statute, and “it does
not create any substantive right enforceable against the
United States for money damages.” United States v.
Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976). Thus, “a plaintiff must
identify a separate source of substantive law that creates
Case: 20-1473 Document: 19 Page: 4 Filed: 08/25/2020
4 TAYLOR v. UNITED STATES
the right to money damages.” Fisher v. United States, 402
F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing United States v.
Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 217 (1983)).
Taylor challenges the government’s compliance with
I.R.C. §§ 6212 and 6213, but neither of these statutes can
be fairly interpreted as money-mandating. Section 6212
provides parameters governing the IRS’s mailing of notices
of deficiency. Section 6213(a) provides a taxpayer with 90
days after the mailing of a notice of deficiency to commence
a Tax Court proceeding to challenge the deficiency. Noth-
ing in either section provides a right to damages if the gov-
ernment fails to comply with the stated requirements.
Taylor’s remaining claims fare no better. To the extent
she raises tort claims for fraud or false imprisonment or
constitutional claims for lack of due process, those claims
are outside of the Claims Court’s jurisdiction. See, e.g.,
Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(explaining that the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over
tort actions against the United States); Smith v. United
States, 709 F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The law is
well settled that the Due Process clauses of both the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments do not mandate the payment
of money and thus do not provide a cause of action under
the Tucker Act.” (citing LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d
1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995))).
After the deadline for filing a memorandum in lieu of
oral argument had passed, Taylor filed a document in this
appeal reiterating arguments made in her opening brief.
Extension – Brief Summary, Taylor v. United States, No.
20-1473 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 17, 2020), ECF No. 18. We have
construed this filing as a motion to file her memorandum
out of time, and the motion is granted.
CONCLUSION
Because Taylor has failed to allege any claim that falls
within the Claims Court’s jurisdiction, the Claims Court
Case: 20-1473 Document: 19 Page: 5 Filed: 08/25/2020
TAYLOR v. UNITED STATES 5
was correct in dismissing her complaint under
Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of
Federal Claims. Accordingly, the judgment of the Claims
Court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED