Simeon Amen Ra v. IRS ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                         NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
    To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    Submitted January 7, 2020*
    Decided January 9, 2020
    Before
    DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge
    ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
    DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
    No. 18-3460
    SIMEON WASHA AMEN RA,                          Appeal from the United States District
    a/k/a SIMEON LEWIS,                            Court for the Northern District
    Plaintiff-Appellant,                    of Illinois, Eastern Division.
    v.                                       No. 14-cv-8295
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                      John Z. Lee,
    Defendant-Appellee.                       Judge.
    ORDER
    Simeon Washa Amen Ra, who describes himself as “an indigenous inhabitant
    traveler” and “One of We the People,” believes that the Internal Revenue Service has
    unlawfully garnished his wages and imposed liens on his property to collect unpaid
    penalties assessed after he filed numerous frivolous income-tax returns. He sued the
    IRS under assorted federal statutes. The district court concluded that Amen Ra’s claims
    were barred by sovereign immunity and dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter
    *  We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
    record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
    significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
    No. 18-3460                                                                           Page 2
    jurisdiction. We agree with the district court that the doctrine of sovereign immunity
    bars Amen Ra’s claims and affirm.
    This is not the first time Amen Ra has sought to stop the IRS from collecting
    unpaid taxes and penalties. Several years ago, he brought a similar action against his
    employer regarding the same assessment. We upheld the dismissal of that action on
    grounds that the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a), precluded the district court
    from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over claims intended to thwart the collection
    of income tax. See Lewis v. BNSF Ry. Co., 671 F. App’x 386, 387 (7th Cir. 2016).
    Characterizing the appeal as frivolous, we warned Amen Ra that further litigation of
    this kind may subject him to sanctions. 
    Id. at 387.
           Amen Ra nevertheless returned to federal court, maintaining that the IRS
    violated several tax-code provisions when it levied his wages and filed a lien against his
    assets—all without holding a hearing. Amen Ra sought relief under an array of federal
    tax statutes—including 26 U.S.C. §§ 6330, 7214, 7422, 7426, 7433—and constitutional
    provisions.
    The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of
    subject-matter jurisdiction based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity. As the court
    explained, exhaustion of administrative remedies is a condition of the federal
    government’s waiver of sovereign immunity for suits regarding unauthorized tax
    collection, see 26 U.S.C. §§ 7422(a), 7433(d)(1), and it was apparent from the face of
    Amen Ra’s complaint that he did not file the forms necessary for exhaustion.
    On appeal, Amen Ra first challenges the district court’s conclusion that sovereign
    immunity precludes his suit because “sovereignty resides not in the government, but in
    the [p]eople.” But the district court correctly concluded that sovereign immunity
    precluded Amen Ra’s claims. The exclusive remedy for challenging wrongful tax
    collection is through § 7433, so Amen Ra’s constitutional arguments are barred.
    See Hudson Valley Black Press v. I.R.S., 
    409 F.3d 106
    , 111–14 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Cameron
    v. I.R.S., 
    773 F.2d 126
    , 129 (7th Cir. 1985)). And though the government waives
    immunity under § 7422 and § 7433 to allow taxpayers to recoup wrongfully collected
    taxes and recover damages if IRS employees violate the tax code, Amen Ra needed to
    exhaust his administrative remedies for that waiver to attach. See §§ 7422(a), 7433(d)(1);
    Goldberg v. United States, 
    881 F.3d 529
    , 532–33 (7th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 
    138 S. Ct. 1564
    (2018). Because Amen Ra did not exhaust his remedies, the district court correctly
    dismissed the complaint. See 
    Goldberg, 881 F.3d at 532
    –33; Gray v. United States, 
    723 F.3d 795
    , 798 (7th Cir. 2013).
    No. 18-3460                                                                           Page 3
    Amen Ra also generally challenges the district court’s conclusion that it lacked
    jurisdiction to consider his remaining claims. Regarding his claim that the IRS violated
    26 U.S.C. § 6330 by failing properly to notify him of the levy, the district court correctly
    determined that this claim is justiciable only by the Tax Court. See 26 U.S.C.
    § 6330(d); Voelker v. Nolen, 
    365 F.3d 580
    , 581 (7th Cir. 2004). As for his claims regarding
    two other tax-collection statutes, 26 U.S.C. § 7214 and § 7426, the court also correctly
    concluded that Amen Ra lacked standing to sue. The former is a criminal statute that
    does not include a private right of action, see Andrews v. Heaton, 
    483 F.3d 1070
    , 1076
    (10th Cir. 2007), and the latter authorizes only “persons other than taxpayers” to sue to
    challenge a wrongful levy, 26 U.S.C. § 7426; see also Frierdich v. United States, 
    985 F.2d 379
    , 380, 382–83 (7th Cir. 1993).
    The judgment is AFFIRMED.
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellant Amen Ra is sanctioned $4,000 for
    filing a frivolous tax appeal. See Szopa v. United States, 
    460 F.3d 884
    , 887 (7th Cir. 2006).
    Within 14 days of the date of this order, Amen Ra must tender a check payable to the
    clerk of this court for the full amount of the sanction. If Amen Ra fails to pay the
    sanction by the due date, we will enter an order directing the clerks of all federal courts
    in this circuit to return unfiled any papers submitted by him or on his behalf unless and
    until he pays the sanction in full. Support Sys. Int'l, Inc. v. Mack, 
    45 F.3d 185
    , 186–87
    (7th Cir. 1995). If such an order restricting Amen Ra’s filings is imposed, Amen Ra may
    move to modify it after two years. Id.