TP Wanted All Of His Taxes Back

[The Observer]

JOSEPH-THEODORE SCHULZE,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

Release Date: MARCH 04, 2008


IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

Filed: March 4, 2008

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, seeks $ 1,287,825 in damages based on a variety of claims, including a claim of $ 9,000 for federal income taxes withheld./1/ Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that plaintiff's tax refund claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that plaintiff's remaining claims are beyond the jurisdiction of this court. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants defendant's motion.

I.

In Artuso v. United States. No. 07-699T, 2008 WL 312172, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 31, 2008), the court addressed allegations virtually identical to the non-tax claims plaintiff presents here, specifically claims seeking relief for "a lifetime of labor for which [the plaintiff has] been obligated"; an "[a]pproximate share of asset instruments evidenced to be received by the Federal Reserve and foreign banks as a deposit by [the plaintiff]"; and "amount[s] evidenced to be received" by a particular bank. Characterizing these claims as either asserting violations of constitutional rights or as sounding in tort, the Artuso court ruled that the plaintiff's claims fell outside this court's jurisdiction. Id. (citing United States v. Mitchell. 463 U.S. 206, 218 (1983) (holding that claims against the United States, whether founded on the Constitution, a federal statute, or a regulation of an executive department, are beyond this court's jurisdiction to the extent the provisions of law invoked cannot "fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damages sustained"), and Keene Corp. v. United States. 508 U.S. 200, 214 (1993) (holding that the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1491(a)(1), excepts from this court's jurisdiction cases "sounding in tort")).

We are bound to reach the same conclusion here. The Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction, restricted by its jurisdictional grant (set forth at 28 U.S.C. section 1491 (2000)) to those actions that assert a right to the payment of money either under a contract or pursuant to the terms of a constitutional provision, a statute, or a regulation, the text of which establishes a right, either expressly or by clear implication, to the compensation being claimed. Plaintiff has failed to present any facts that would entitle him to relief either under the terms of a contract or under a money-mandating provision of law. Thus, this court has no jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's non-tax claims.

II.

Plaintiff's claim for the recovery of federal income taxes is similarly unavailing./2/ Plaintiff seeks the repayment of $ 3,000 a year for the past three years under the theory that wages are not taxable income since they are equivalent in economic value to the services rendered and therefore do not constitute a gain. Such an argument has been repeatedly rejected by the courts, however, and finds no more favorable reception here. See, e.g., United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1330 n.1 (7th Cir. 1984) ("[D]efendant still insists that no case holds that wages are income. Let us now put that to rest: WAGES ARE INCOME."). Thus, as plaintiff's wages were properly subject to income tax, we can find no basis for a refund.

III.

For the reasons set forth above, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. The Clerk is directed to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. No costs.

John P. Wiese
Judge

FOOTNOTES

/1/ Plaintiff additionally seeks: $ 750,000 for "[a] lifetime of labor for which [plaintiff has] been obligated"; $ 441,000 for an "[a]pproximate share of asset instruments evidenced to be received by the Federal Reserve and foreign banks as a deposit by [plaintiff] and [plaintiff's] parents"; $ 64,000 representing an "amount evidenced to be received as a deposit by Washington Mutual Bank"; $ 12,000 representing "[p]resent year and 3 previous years of school taxes for Federal Programs"; victims compensation and additional damages to be determined; and $ 2,825 for "research and composition time" and miscellaneous expenses.

/2/ Plaintiff additionally seeks a refund of $ 12,000 for the "[p]resent year and 3 previous years of school taxes for Federal Programs." As plaintiff confirmed at the preliminary status conference held on January 3, 2008, however, this claim is one for the refund of state rather than federal taxes, and as such, falls outside this court's jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1) (limiting this court's jurisdiction to suits against the United States).