Opinion
Case No. CV-S-04-0021-RLH (LRL).
April 4, 2005
ORDER (Motion to Dismiss-#10 Countermotion to Extend Discovery-#14)
Before the Court is Defendant United States' Motion to Dismiss (#10), filed January 13, 2005. The Court has also considered Plaintiff's Opposition (#13), filed February 28, 2005, as well as Defendant's Reply (#15), filed March 22, 2005. Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Countermotion to Extend Discovery (#14), filed February 28, 2005.
From what the Court can adduce from the exceedingly spare facts in this action, Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy under Chapter Seven in 1996 and again under Chapter Thirteen in 1998. At some unspecified point following these filings, Plaintiff alleges that the IRS seized certain assets in satisfaction of tax liabilities that, Plaintiff asserts, were discharged in these bankruptcy actions. Those seized assets allegedly included Plaintiff's home in New York and subsequent tax refunds due to Plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts that these actions were in contravention of 26 U.S.C. § 7432(b) [I.R.C. § 7432], and Plaintiff subsequently filed suit against the United States on January 7, 2004 in this Court, alleging the existence of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and asserting — in a single sentence — "That Plaintiff has exhausted all available administrative remedies prior to the filing of this action" without providing anything in support of that claim.
On January 13, 2005, the Government filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting, inter alia, that jurisdiction was improper because (1) Plaintiff has failed to establish that she exhausted her administrative remedies in this matter, namely that she filed an initial claim with the district director of the applicable revenue district, as required under the appropriate regulations; and (2) Plaintiff has failed to specify when the IRS allegedly seized her property so that the Government can determine if the Statute of Limitations has run in this action (§ 7432(d)(3) specifies a two-year statute of limitations commencing from the date the right to sue accrues). Plaintiff opposes, asserting that she has exhausted all available administrative remedies "within the IRS," but failing to provide any indication (or so much as an assertion) that she did file an initial claim with the appropriate district director. Plaintiff also fails to specify when the complained-of IRS action occurred. In tandem with her Opposition, Plaintiff files a motion to extend discovery (which has closed in this action) so that she may investigate the status of a Form 8857 Request for Innocent Spouse Relief she previously filed with the IRS.
After reviewing this matter, the Court will grant the Government's Motion to Dismiss. The Government is correct in asserting that, in instances of suit against a sovereign, this Court may not proceed without an explicit waiver of that sovereign's immunity. In the case at bar, that requirement means that Plaintiff must satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisite of demonstrating administrative exhaustion with the IRS before she may proceed against the Government. Plaintiff has erroneously understood that her Form 8857 filing satisfies § 7432(d)(1)'s requirements; it does not. As was noted in Venen v. U.S., 38 F.3d 100 (3d Cir. 1994),
Treasury regulations specify the administrative remedies to exhaust. Administrative remedies for section 7432 are set forth in Treasury Regulation § 301.7432-1. . . . An administrative claim for failure to release a tax lien must include the taxpayer's identifying information, a copy of the notice of lien affecting the property, the grounds for the claim, a description of injuries, and the amount of the claim. See Treas. Reg. § 301.7432-1(f). * * * [The regulation requires] a taxpayer to make the claim for relief "in writing to the district director . . . in the district in which the taxpayer currently resides." Treas. Reg. §§ 301.7432-1(f); 301.7433-1(e). * * * The failure to comply deprives a court of jurisdiction even though the IRS has received actual notice of the claim and never informs the taxpayer of the proper procedures.Id. at 103. In the face of the Government's Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff has provided this Court with nothing to indicate that she ever filed such a claim with the appropriate district director; the Court concludes, therefore, that Plaintiff failed to so file a claim. Plaintiff has also failed to specify when the IRS allegedly seized her property and her cause of action accrued, and that silence comes again in the face of the Government's Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the Court finds that it is without jurisdiction or, in the alternative, that Plaintiff's action is untimely, and will grant the Government's Motion to Dismiss. Given that the status of Plaintiff's Form 8857 filing is inapposite with respect to the Government's Motion, the Court will deny Plaintiff's request for a discovery extension to pursue that inquiry.
Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Countermotion to Extend Discovery (#14) is DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (#10) is GRANTED.
The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.