Caroline Pekrul v. United States

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________

CAROLINE PEKRUL,
Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________

2019-2409
______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:19-cv-00613-TCW, Judge Thomas C. Wheeler.
______________________

Decided: February 5, 2020
______________________

C
AROLINE PEKRUL, Scottsdale, AZ, pro se.

SHERRA TINYI WONG, Tax Division, United States De-
partment of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appel-
lee. Also represented by THOMAS J. CLARK, RICHARD E.
ZUCKERMAN.
______________________

Before D
YK, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Case: 19-2409 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 02/05/2020

PEKRUL v. UNITED STATES 2
Caroline Pekrul filed a complaint with the United
States Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the Internal
Revenue Service, engaging in tax collection, had filed coun-
terfeit securities and billing statements against her. The
Court of Federal Claims held that it lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction over Ms. Pekrul’s claims and dismissed her
complaint. We affirm.
I
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has asserted that
Ms. Pekrul owes the United States over $4 million in
taxes—and associated fees and interest—for tax years
2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006. To collect the taxes assertedly
owed, the IRS has placed liens on Ms. Pekrul’s property
and has garnished her Social Security benefits.
In May 2018, Ms. Pekrul filed a petition with the
United States Tax Court challenging the IRS’s assessment
of taxes for the years 2000–2017. The IRS, acting as re-
spondent, moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdic-
tion on various grounds. The Tax Court granted the
motion.
In April 2019, Ms. Pekrul filed this action against the
United States in the Court of Federal Claims. Ms. Pekrul
alleges that the United States had “placed counterfeit se-
curities and billing notices against plaintiff and collected
money from plaintiff without jurisdiction.” S.A. 6. She also
alleges that these actions had damaged her in the amount
of $4,338,699.89. S.A. 7. Attached to her complaint are,
among other things, the Tax Court’s order of dismissal for
lack of jurisdiction and the IRS’s motion to dismiss in the
Tax Court.
The government moved to dismiss Ms. Pekrul’s com-
plaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Court of
Federal Claims Rule 12(b)(1). The Court of Federal Claims
granted the motion, reasoning that Ms. Pekrul had failed
to establish that she met the requirements for a tax-refund
Case: 19-2409 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 02/05/2020

PEKRUL v. UNITED STATES 3
suit and had not persuasively articulated an alternative
theory of relief within the court’s jurisdiction. Pekrul v.
United States, 144 Fed. Cl. 522, 524 (2019). The court en-
tered final judgment on September 6, 2019. S.A. 1.
Ms. Pekrul timely filed a notice of appeal. S.A. 36; 28
U.S.C. §§ 2107, 2522. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(3).
II
On appeal, Ms. Pekrul argues that the Court of Federal
Claims failed to consider the evidence showing her injury
and should have considered her claim under the Fourth
Amendment.
We review de novo the court’s dismissal for lack of sub-
ject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. Alpine PCS,
Inc. v. United States, 878 F.3d 1086, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir.
2004). In reviewing a dismissal made on the complaint, we
accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint. Er-
ickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93–94 (2007). Although we
generally interpret the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff liber-
ally, Durr v. Nicholson, 400 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (citing Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9–10 (1980)), pro
se status cannot excuse a failure to demonstrate that juris-
dictional requirements are met, Henke v. United States,
60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The party seeking relief
from the court bears the burden of establishing the court’s
jurisdiction. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of
Ind., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936).
A
Although the exhibits attached to the complaint, and
the dollar value of the alleged injury, might suggest that
Ms. Pekrul is seeking a tax refund, the complaint does not
come within the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction over
tax refund claims. A taxpayer seeking a refund of taxes
erroneously or illegally assessed or collected may bring an
Case: 19-2409 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 02/05/2020

PEKRUL v. UNITED STATES 4
action against the government in the Court of Federal
Claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). But there are two prereq-
uisites to the court’s jurisdiction over such a claim: first,
the taxpayer must have already paid the disputed taxes in
full, Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63, 75–76 (1958); sec-
ond, the taxpayer must have sought a refund from the IRS
before suing in the Court of Federal Claims. 26 U.S.C.
§ 7422(a). Ms. Pekrul has not shown that either prerequi-
site was met. Therefore, the Court of Federal Claims
lacked jurisdiction to hear Ms. Pekrul’s complaint as a
claim for a tax refund.
B
Ms. Pekrul’s complaint contains allegations of fraudu-
lent tax collection: it alleges that the government has
“placed counterfeit securities and billing notices” against
her. S.A. 6. But a claim of fraudulent tax collection is es-
sentially a tort claim. The Court of Federal Claims lacks
jurisdiction over such a claim, as it “sound[s] in tort.” 28
U.S.C. § 1491; see Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621,
623 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
C
In her informal brief to this court, Ms. Pekrul argues
that the Court of Federal Claims should have applied the
Fourth Amendment, implying that the IRS’s assessment of
taxes against her, and its use of liens and garnishments to
collect those taxes, violated her right to be secure in her
person, houses, papers, and effects. This characterization
does not aid Ms. Pekrul in identifying a claim within the
Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction.
Although some claims founded upon the Constitution
are within the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction, a
plaintiff making such a claim must demonstrate that the
source of substantive law she relies upon can “fairly be in-
terpreted as mandating compensation by the federal gov-
ernment for the damages sustained.” United States v.
Case: 19-2409 Document: 27 Page: 4 Filed: 02/05/2020

PEKRUL v. UNITED STATES 5
Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216–17 (1983) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). The Fourth Amendment does
not mandate compensation by the federal government for
damages sustained. See id.; Brown, 105 F.3d at 623.
Therefore, Ms. Pekrul’s Fourth Amendment claim is out-
side the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. Brown,
105 F.3d at 623–24.
III
Because Ms. Pekrul has not shown that she has a claim
within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, we
affirm the judgment dismissing the case.
AFFIRMED
Case: 19-2409 Document: 27 Page: 5 Filed: 02/05/2020