Robertson v. United States ( 2005 )

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-19-2005
Robertson v. USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-1893
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Robertson v. USA" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 533.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/533
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
NO. 04-1893
________________
MARY LYNNE ROBERTSON;
L. THORNE MCCARTY,
Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
_______________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 01-cv-04942)
District Judge: Honorable Stanley R. Chesler
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 26, 2004
BEFORE: ROTH, RENDELL and FISHER, Circuit Judges
(Filed September 19, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
In June 1997, appellant L. Thorne McCarty and appellant Mary Lynne Robertson
were married in the Republic of Fiji. Appellants subsequently filed a joint tax return for
the 1997 tax year. In August 1999, McCarty sent a letter with an affidavit and declaration
to the Fijian Registrar General’s Office. In the affidavit and declaration, McCarty stated
that his and Robertson’s marriage was null and void because the parties failed to
understand the tax consequences of their marriage. On the same date, L. Thorne McCarty
filed an amended federal income tax return for 1997. In the amended tax return, McCarty
sought to change his and Robertson’s filing status from “Married filing joint return,” to
“single” and “Head of household” respectively. The change in filing status resulted in tax
liability that was $4,635.00 less than the tax paid by appellants in 1997. McCarty thus
sought a $4,635.00 refund.1
In September 1999, the Registrar General of Fiji responded to McCarty’s letter and
explained that McCarty’s marriage to Robertson was legal under Fiji law. In October
1999, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) disallowed McCarty’s refund request. The
reason given by the IRS for the disallowance was that McCarty could not change his
filing status from joint to separate, head of household, or single after the due date of the
return. By letter dated March 6, 2000, the IRS further explained that McCarty’s refund
claim was denied because he did not prove that he was not legally married when he filed a
joint tax return for 1997. McCarty was not satisfied with the IRS’s explanations for the
denial of his refund claim.
1
It appears that only McCarty filed a refund claim for the 1997 tax year.
2
In October 2007, McCarty and Robertson filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey challenging the denial of the refund claim
and the IRS’s handling of the claim. The gravamen of the complaint was that the IRS
violated section 3505 of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of
1998, codified as section 6402(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C. § 6402(k)).
Section 6402(k) requires the IRS to explain to a taxpayer why a refund claim is denied.
The appellants claimed that the IRS violated I.R.C. § 6402(k) by failing to give a valid
reason for denying McCarty’s refund claim and that the violation: (1) rendered the
disallowance of McCarty’s refund claim null and void (Count I); (2) entitled them to a
monetary award in the amount of the refund claimed (Count II); and (3) entitled them to
damages under I.R.C. § 7433 for unauthorized collection activities (Count III). The
appellants also claimed that the “marriage tax penalty” was unconstitutional (Count IV).
In May 2002, the IRS filed a motion to dismiss Count III. The District Court
granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The appeal from that order was dismissed without judicial action. See C.A. No. 03-1100.
In June 2003, the IRS filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the remaining
claims. McCarty and Robertson subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment with
regard to Count IV. By order entered January 29, 2004, the District Court granted
summary judgment in favor of the IRS, and denied McCarty and Robertson’s cross-
3
motion for summary judgment. McCarty and Robertson appeal only the dismissal of
Count II and Count III.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review of
orders granting motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. Weston v.
Pennsylvania, 251 F.3d 420, 425 (3d Cir. 2001) (motion to dismiss); Gallo v. City of
Philadelphia, 161 F.3d 217, 221 (3d Cir. 1998) (summary judgment). In reviewing an
order granting a motion to dismiss, we accept all factual allegations in the complaint as
true, and we draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Weston, 251 F.3d at 425. We will affirm only if no relief could be granted under any set
of facts the plaintiff could prove. Id. A grant of summary judgment will be affirmed if
our review reveals that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We
review the facts in a light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment
was entered. See Coolspring Stone Supply, Inc. v. Am. States Life Ins. Co., 10 F.3d 144,
146 (3d Cir. 1993).
After careful review of the record and consideration of the arguments on appeal,
we agree with the District Court’s disposition of Count II and Count III. The District
Court correctly dismissed Count II for lack of jurisdiction because the Government has
not waived its sovereign immunity to allow for damage suits for alleged violations of
I.R.C. § 6402(k). See United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 608 (1990); United States v.
4
Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 (1976). In any event, even if the United States had expressly
waived its sovereign immunity, and it did not, we note that Count II would nonetheless
fail on the merits because the IRS complied with I.R.C. § 6402(k) by providing McCarty
with an explanation as to why his refund claim was denied. The fact that McCarty and
Robertson are not satisfied with the explanation does not give rise to an issue of material
fact. Summary judgment was thus properly granted in favor of the IRS with respect to
Count II.
The District Court correctly dismissed Count III for failure to state a claim under
I.R.C. § 7433. Because the IRS was not engaged in the collection of federal taxes in the
action challenged here, section 7433 did not apply. See Gonsalves v. IRS, 975 F.2d 13,
16 (1 st Cir. 1992); Shaw v. United States, 20 F.3d 182, 184 (5 th Cir. 1994).
We have fully considered appellants’ arguments on appeal and conclude that they
lack merit and warrant no further discussion. For the reasons set forth above, we will
affirm the judgment of the District Court.
5