To get damages from the IRS for unlawful disclosure, one must file an Administrative Claim against the IRS and then pursue all IRS administrative remedies
Rebekah H. Miller, Plaintiff v. United States, Defendant. U.S. District Court, D.C.; Civ. 06-1525, July 30, 2007.Related case DC D.C. Code Sec. 7431]
Jurisdiction: Tax return information: Disclosure by IRS: Damages: Exclusive remedy. --
A federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over an individual's Code Sec. 7433 provides the exclusive remedy for unlawful disclosures made in connection with tax-collection activity. Moreover, the taxpayer had previously filed a damages claim under Code Sec. 7431.
DENYING THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND; GRANTING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
I. INTRODUCTIONURBINA, United States District Judge: This matter comes before the court on the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint and the defendant's motion to dismiss. The plaintiff brings suit against the federal government alleging violations of
A. Standard of Review for Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(1)Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and the law presumes that "a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-89 (1938); see also Gen. Motors Corp. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 363 F.3d 442, 448 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (noting that "[a]s a court of limited jurisdiction, we begin, and end, with an examination of our jurisdiction").Because "subject-matter jurisdiction is an `Art. III as well as a statutory requirement[,] no action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a federal court.' " Akinseye v. Dist. of Columbia, 339 F.3d 970, 971 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting Ins. Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982)). On a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). The court may dismiss a complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction only if "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Ltd., 315 F.3d 338, 343 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)).Because subject-matter jurisdiction focuses on the court's power to hear the claim, however, the court must give the plaintiff's factual allegations closer scrutiny when resolving a Rule 12(b)(1) motion than would be required for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim. Macharia v. United States, 334 F.3d 61, 64, 69 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft, 185 F. Supp. 2d 9, 13 (D.D.C. 2001). Moreover, the court is not limited to the allegations contained in the complaint. Hohri v. United State s, 782 F.2d 227, 241 (D.C. Cir. 1986), vacated on other grounds, 482 U.S. 64 (1987). Instead, to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the claim, the court may consider materials outside the pleadings. Herbert v. Nat'l Acad. of Scis., 974 F.2d 192, 197 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
B. The Court Lacks Subject-Matter JurisdictionThe plaintiff brings the instant, surviving suit under 26 U.S.C.
C. The Court Denies the Plaintiff's Motion to AmendThe plaintiff responds to the defendant's motion to dismiss by filing a motion to amend her complaint. "Whether to grant or deny leave to amend rests in the district court's sound discretion," Nwachukwu v. Karl, 222 F.R.D. 208, 210 (D.D.C. 2004) ( citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). The court should "determine the propriety of amendment on a case by case basis, using a generous standard." Harris v. Sec'y, Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 126 F.3d 339, 344 (D.C. Cir.1997).In this case, the plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint, like her first amended complaint, comes to the court under 26 U.S.C.
IV. CONCLUSIONFor the foregoing reasons, the court grants the defendant's motion to dismiss and denies the plaintiff's motion to amend. An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued this 30 th day of July 2007.1 Although the court rests its ruling on the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, it notes that the plaintiff's failure to file a timely response is itself a sufficient basis for dismissing this action. See Fox v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291, 1294 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (stating that, under Local Rule 7(b), the court has the discretion to treat any motion against which a response is not filed as conceded).