IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 95-50037
Summary Calendar
_____________________
PATRICK LAPAGLIA and
MARY HELEN LAPAGLIA,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
MARGARET RICHARDSON, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas
(94 CV 251)
_______________________________________________________
August 24, 1995
Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Patrick and Mary Helen Lapaglia sued the Internal Revenue
Service (the "IRS") and some of its employees for fraudulent
misrepresentation, negligence and malicious conduct. The
district court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction.
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
The Lapaglias appeal contending jurisdiction was proper. We
affirm.
As the district court concluded, the Lapaglias' claims based
on state law are barred by sovereign immunity. Williams v.
Collins, 728 F.2d 721, 727 (5th Cir. 1984). The Federal Tort
Claims Act does not provide a waiver of sovereign immunity to the
Lapaglias because this Act specifically exempts suits "arising in
respect of the assessment or collection of any tax . . . ." 28
U.S.C. § 2680; see also Capozzoli v. Tracey, 663 F.2d 654, 658
(5th Cir. 1981)(holding that section 2680 encompasses any
activities remotely related to an IRS agent's official duties).
We also agree with the district court's conclusion that
there is no jurisdiction for the Lapaglias' claims under 26
U.S.C. § 7433(d) because of their failure to first follow the
administrative procedures described and required by 26 C.F.R.
§301.7433 (1994). The Lapaglias contend that correspondence
between their attorney and the IRS and their "Claim for Refund
and Request for Abatement" fulfilled the administrative
requirements. Section 301.7433-1 provides specific and
straightforward instructions as to the appropriate steps to take
before filing suit in district court. Neither the correspondence
nor the claim form fulfilled these requirements.
AFFIRMED.
2