Ahmed v. United States ( 2020 )

3Jn tbe Wnittb §sitaten ~ourt of jfeberal ~Iaint.s
No. 19-1349T
(Filed: January I 4, 2020)
)
IBRAHIM AHMED, ) Pro Se; Dismissal for Lack of Subject
) Matter Jurisdiction; Rule l 2(b )(I);
Pro Se Plaintiff, ) Uniform Federal Lien Registration
) Act; Provisions of the Internal
V. ) Revenue Service Restructuring and
) Reform Act; Tort Claims
THE UNITED STATES, )
)
Defendant. )
)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pending before the court is the United States' ("the government") motion to
dismiss the above-captioned case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule
12(b)(l) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"). The
motion was filed on November 4, 2019. Mot. to Dismiss ("MtD") at I (Doc. No. 5). On
September 3, 2019, plaintiff, Mr. Ibrahim Ahmed, filed a complaint in this court
challenging various federal tax liens filed by the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") in the
state of Georgia. Comp!. at 3 (Doc. No. !); App. to Comp!. at 2 (Doc. No. 1-2). In his
complaint, Mr. Ahmed alleges the IRS violated the Uniform Federal Lien Registration
Act ("UFLRA") by filing these liens on his property and rights to property. Comp!. at 2.
The UFLRA is a model act that has been adopted by a majority of states and provides a
centralized system of filing and indexing federal tax liens. UN!F. FED. LIEN
7018 1830 0001 4963 6526
REGISTRATION ACT (UNJF. LA w COMM'N 1982). Georgia, where the liens for Mr.
Ahmed's property were filed, has not adopted the UFLRA but has adopted a lien
registration act modeled on the UFLRA's predecessor, the Federal Tax Lien Act. See GA.
Code Ann.§§ 44-14-570 to 44-14-574 (West 2019). Mr. Ahmed also alleges that the IRS
violated various provisions of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act ("RRA") of 1998,
which amended the Internal Revenue Code ("I.R.C.") of 1986. Pub. L. No. 105-206, 112
Stat. 685. Specifically, Mr. Ahmed alleges violations ofl.R.C. §§ 6321, 6322, 6323,
6331, 7426, 7432, and 7433. In general, these provisions govern liens and the rights of
taxpayers. Finally, Mr. Ahmed alleges loss of property, loss of consortium, financial
undue hardship, emotional stress, pain and suffering, slander of credit, and financial
involuntary servitude. He is seeking $875,000.00 in penalties and interest. Comp!. at 2-6.
In its motion to dismiss, the government argues that all of Mr. Ahmed's claims must be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, the
government's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
I. FACTS
Mr. Ahmed contends that the IRS improperly filed federal tax liens on his property
for tax years 2013 through 2015, and/or failed to release those liens. App. to Comp!. at 2-
4, 12-13. Mr. Ahmed attaches a "Demand for Lien Removal," in which he asse1ts that the
federal income tax is voluntary, the I.R.C. was never properly enacted, and that he owes
no taxes as he has never been a federal employee, held public office, derived income
from a trade or business in the United States, and that he is not a United States person or
2
United States citizen. Id. at I 0-11. Mr. Ahmed seeks compensation for the alleged
violations of the UFLRA and damages under a variety of legal theories. Comp!. at 6.
II. LEGAL ST AND ARDS
The Tucker Act provides this court with jurisdiction over "any claim against the
United States founded either upon the Constitution, 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. § 149l(a)(l). Because the Tucker Act "does not create any substantive right
enforceable against the United States for money damages," a plaintiff must also rely on a
relevant money-mandating federal statue, regulation, or provision of the Constitution to
establish jurisdiction. Vondrake v. United States, 141 Fed. Cl. 599, 601 (quoting United
States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976)), ajf'd sub nom. Drake v. United States, No.
2018-2135, 2019 WL 5960464 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2019). Courts have an independent
obligation to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, and if the court lacks
jurisdiction, it cannot proceed with the action and must dismiss the case. Hertz Corp. v.
Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010); Vondrake, 141 Fed. CJ. at 602.
Mr. Ahmed, as plaintiff, must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the
evidence. Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(citing Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988));
see also Estes Express Lines v. United States, 739 F.3d 689,692 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(holding that plaintiff in the Court of Federal Claims bears the burden of establishing
subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence). Although a plaintiff
3
acting pro se is generally held to "less stringent standards" of pleading than those of a
lawyer, Mone v. United States, 766 F. App'x 979, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,520 (1972)), this liberal standard does not extend to a prose
plaintiff's jurisdictional burden, which must be proven by a preponderance of the
evidence, Trusted Integration, 659 F.3d at 1163. Fid. & Guard. Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v.
United States, 805 F.3d 1082, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d
795, 799 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
III. DISCUSSION
A. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Claims under the
UFLRA
The UFLRA is a model act that has been adopted by a majority of states and
provides a centralized system of filing and indexing tax liens. The UFLRA "applies only
to federal tax liens and to other federal liens notices of which under any Act of Congress
or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto are required or permitted to be filed in the
same manner as notices of federal tax liens." UFLRA § 1. Mr. Ahmed's complaint
alleges that the IRS failed to comply with a requirement in the UFLRA that the Secretary
of the Treasury (or a delegate) certify notices of a federal tax lien. Comp!. at 3. The
government moves to dismiss his claims as beyond this court's jurisdiction. MtD at 3.
The government argues that this court does not have jurisdiction over the UFLRA
because it is a state law. Id. at 3-4. The court agrees with the government. As a
preliminary matter, Georgia has not adopted the UFLRA. Instead, it has adopted a lien
registration act modeled on the UFLRA's predecessor, the Federal Tax Lien Act. See GA.
4
Code Ann. §§ 44-14-570 to 44-14-574 (West 2019). As such, Mr. Ahmed incorrectly
invokes the UFLRA. Nonetheless, for the reasons that follow this court does not have
jurisdiction based on violations of the UFLRA in any event.
As explained above, the UFLRA is implemented through state laws. Claims
founded on state law are "outside the scope of the limited jurisdiction of the [United
States] Court of Federal Claims." Soloway v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 400,405 (2017)
(quoting Sounders v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth., 1303,1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). It is well settled
that this court only has jurisdiction over claims against the United States "that are
founded upon the United States Constitution, afederal statute or regulation, or an express
or implied contract with the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a) (emphasis added);
Walby v. United States, 144 Fed. Cl. 1, 6 (2019) (citing United States v. White Mountain
Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 472 (2003)). Since the UFLRA, is a state law, not a federal
law, this court does not have jurisdiction over claims arising under the UFLRA.
B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction is Lacking over Plaintifrs Wrongful Levy
and Illegal Collection Claims
Mr. Ahmed also alleges violations of various statutes related to wrongful lien and
levy and illegal collection under the IRS RRA. Specifically, Mr. Ahmed challenges the
IRS's lien and levy actions under I.R.C. §§ 6321, 6322, 6323, and 6331, as well as the
procedural requirements set forth in I.R.C. §§ 7426, 7432, and 7433 regarding
proceedings by taxpayers and third parties against the IRS for unlawful collection
activities. Comp!. at 4-5; Reply at 1-3 (Doc. No. 6). The government moves to dismiss
his claims as beyond this court's jurisdiction, asserting that this court does not have
5
jurisdiction over wrongful levy and illegal collection of liens claims and claims for civil
damages asserting failure to release a lien, which must be brought in federal district court
under I.R.C. § 7433(a) ("[T]axpayer may bring civil action for damages against the
United States in a district court of the United States") and I.R.C. § 7432 ("[T]axpayer
may bring a civil action for damages against the United States in a district court of the
United States."). MtD at 4.
The form and content of lien notices are controlled by federal law. I.R.C. §
6323(f)(3); Tolotti v. Comm 'r, 83 T.C.M. 1436 (T.C. 2002) ("It is well settled that
the form and content of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien is controlled by Federal law."),
aff'd, 70 F. App'x 971 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co.,
368 U.S. 291,294 (1961)). The I.R.C. "permits taxpayers to bring lawsuits when 'any
officer or employee of the [IRS] recklessly or intentionally, or by reason of negligence,
disregards any provision of [the Internal Revenue Code], or any regulation promulgated
[thereunder]' in connection with federal tax collection." Woljfing v. United States, 144
Fed. Cl. 626,639 (2019) (quoting I.R.C. § 7433(a)). The I.R.C. also permits taxpayers to
bring lawsuits when "any officer or employee of the [IRS] knowingly, or by reason of
negligence, fails to release a lien." I.R.C. § 7432(a). Such actions, however, may only be
brought in federal district court. Woljfing, 144 Fed. Cl. at 639; Brennecke v. United
States, 145 Fed. Cl. 354, 356 (2019). The U.S. Court of Federal Claims is not a federal
district court. 28 U.S.C. § 451 (defining "district court" as those courts described in
chapter 5 of Title 28 of the United States Code); see also Ledford v. United States, 297
F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("The Court of Federal Claims is not a district court ...
6
."). As such, Mr. Ahmed cannot maintain his wrongful levy and illegal collection claims
here. Mr. Ahmed's claims under the IRS RRA therefore must be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
C. Subject Matter Jurisdiction is Lacking over Plaintiff's Claims
Sounding in Tort
Finally, Mr. Ahmed's remaining claims must be dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. The government argues that these claims are beyond this court's
jurisdiction on the grounds that these claims sound in tort. MtD at 4. The court agrees
with the government. It is well settled that this court does not have jurisdiction over tort
claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(l) (providing that this court has jurisdiction over claims "not
sounding in tort"). Instead, such claims must be commenced in federal district courts. 28
U.S.C. § 1346(b)(l); see also US. Marine, Inc. v. United States, 722 F.3d 1360, 1372
(Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding that the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over
tort claims); Simmons v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 188, 194 (2006) (holding that the
Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction over tort claims for loss of consortium,
mental anguish, undue stress, pain and suffering). Mr. Ahmed's claims sounding in tort
must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
Because this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over any of the claims
in Mr. Ahmed's complaint, the government's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The
Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss Mr. Ahmed's complaint for lack of subject matter
7
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(l) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal
Claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8