Case: 20-1216 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 04/13/2021
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BYRON L. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2020-1216
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
Claims in No. 1:19-cv-00765-PEC, Judge Patricia E.
Campbell-Smith.
______________________
Decided: April 13, 2021
______________________
BYRON L. TAYLOR, West Yellowstone, MT, pro se.
JANET A. BRADLEY, Tax Division, United States De-
partment of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-
appellee. Also represented by THOMAS J. CLARK, RICHARD
E. ZUCKERMAN.
______________________
Before DYK, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
Case: 20-1216 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 04/13/2021
2 TAYLOR v. US
PER CURIAM.
Byron L. Taylor appeals a final decision of the United
States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismiss-
ing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Taylor filed timely income tax returns and fully
paid his tax liability for the 2010, 2011, and 2012 tax
years. Mr. Taylor later filed amended returns for the
2010–2012 tax years. The Internal Revenue Service
(“IRS”) determined that all of the amended returns were
frivolous and assessed penalties against Mr. Taylor. The
IRS transferred Mr. Taylor’s overpayments from tax years
2014–2017 as partial payment for the penalties and has
unsuccessfully attempted to use liens and levies to collect
the outstanding balance.
After unsuccessfully seeking relief in the Tax Court,
on May 21, 2019, Mr. Taylor filed a complaint in the
Claims Court seeking damages allegedly stemming from
the IRS’s assessment of penalties and its collection efforts.
On September 10, 2019, the Claims Court dismissed the
complaint, concluding that it did not have jurisdiction
over Mr. Taylor’s challenges to IRS assessments of tax
liability and collection practices. Mr. Taylor then filed a
motion for reconsideration, apparently predicated on the
Fourth Amendment, which the Claims Court denied on
October 7, 2019. Mr. Taylor appeals. We have jurisdic-
tion under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
DISCUSSION
The only issue here is whether the Claims Court
properly dismissed Mr. Taylor’s complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
We review de novo a dismissal by the Claims Court
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Petro-Hunt, L.L.C.
Case: 20-1216 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 04/13/2021
TAYLOR v. US 3
v. United States,
862 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(citing Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. United
States,
805 F.3d 1082, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). A plaintiff
must show by a preponderance of the evidence that juris-
diction obtains. Taylor v. United States,
303 F.3d 1357,
1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Thomson v. Gaskill,
315 U.S.
442, 446 (1942)).
The Tucker Act,
28 U.S.C. § 1491, is the principal
statute governing the Claims Court’s jurisdiction. See
28
U.S.C. § 1491; Taylor,
303 F.3d at 1359. Under the
Tucker Act, the Claims Court has jurisdiction
to render judgment upon any claim against the
United States founded either upon the Constitu-
tion, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of
an executive department, or upon any express or
implied contract with the United States, or for
liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not
sounding in tort.
28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).
Under
28 U.S.C. § 1346, sometimes known as the
“Little Tucker Act,” the Claims Court also has jurisdiction
over
civil action[s] against the United States for the re-
covery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have
been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected,
or any penalty claimed to have been collected
without authority or any sum alleged to have been
excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected
under the internal-revenue laws.
28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1).
Under the “full payment rule,” to maintain a tax re-
fund action under § 1346, a taxpayer must have fully paid
the assessed tax. Shore v. United States,
9 F.3d 1524,
1526 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing Flora v. United States, 362
Case: 20-1216 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 04/13/2021
4 TAYLOR v. US
U.S. 145, 150, 177 (1960)). We have further held that for
the Claims Court to have jurisdiction over “a claim over
assessed interest or penalties,” the taxpayer must “prepay
such interest and penalties” before filing suit.
Id. at
1527–28. Here, Mr. Taylor sought a refund for the frivo-
lous return penalties assessed against him without hav-
ing paid said penalties in full. Therefore, under the full
payment rule, the Claims Court did not have jurisdiction
to hear his claim for a refund.
As to Mr. Taylor’s Fourth Amendment claim, the ju-
risdiction of the Claims Court “is limited to cases in which
the Constitution or a federal statute requires the payment
of money damages as compensation for their violation.”
Brown v. United States,
105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(emphasis added). Because “the Fourth Amendment does
not mandate the payment of money for its violation,” the
Claims Court does not have jurisdiction over Fourth
Amendment claims.
Id.
Mr. Taylor also argues that the Claims Court did not
take account of the exhibits he submitted in support of his
claim, but having reviewed the record, we find no reason
to doubt the Claims Court’s representation that it “thor-
oughly examined” Mr. Taylor’s complaint and response
brief in deciding the government’s motion to dismiss. See
S. App’x at 3.
Finally, we note that contrary to Mr. Taylor’s asser-
tion, the government’s motion to dismiss before the Tax
Court in no way constitutes a concession that the IRS
lacked jurisdiction to assess taxes or penalties against Mr.
Taylor.
We hold that the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction
over Mr. Taylor’s complaint and properly dismissed.
AFFIRMED
