JOHNNY R. KING, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction and that sanctions are appropriate for a frivolous appeal.
King brought an action for tax recovery, but had not filed an administrative claim for refund. The district court dismissed the action for lack of jur…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jurisdictional Prerequisite cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The district court did not err in dismissing King’s action for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a).1
The government urges us to impose sanctions against King for bringing a frivolous appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 38. We find that sanctions are appropriate here. It was pointed out to King in the district court’s order that 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a) provides that no suit can be maintained for recovery of any tax or penalty until an administrative claim for refund has been filed. The statute is unambiguous and could not possibly have been mistaken. Moreover, the case law makes it clear that filing a claim for an administrative refund is a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintenance of a refund suit. See, e.g., United States v. Felt & Tarrant Mfg. Co., 283 U.S. 269, 273, 51 S.Ct. 376, 378, 75 L.Ed. 1025 (1931); Rock Island, A. & L.R. Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 141, 142-43, 41 S.Ct. 55, 56, 65 L.Ed. 188 (1920); Thompson v. United States, 332 F. 2d 657, 659 (5th Cir.1964);2 Zernial v. United States, 714 F. 2d 431, 434 (5th Cir.1983); Dixie Margarine Co. v. Shaefer, 139 F. 2d 221, 223 (6th Cir.1943), cert. denied, 321 U.S. 791, 64 S.Ct. 789, 88 L.Ed. 1081 (1944). In light of the district court order pointing out the law and the absolute clarity of the statute, it is obvious that King’s appeal is frivolous. The arguments which King makes in order to skirt this issue have been asserted to this court numerous times and have been declared by this court to be frivolous. Therefore, sanctions pursuant to Rule 38 are entirely appropriate.
In lieu of remanding this case to the district court for an assessment of costs and attorney’s fees, the government urges, in the interest of judicial economy, that this court enter an award of damages in a set amount. In this regard, the government has represented to the court that the average award ordered by courts in cases such as this during the relevant time period was $1,246. Although we would have preferred that the government establish its costs and attorney’s fees by affidavit, since King has not disputed the government’s representation of $1,246, we accept same. This procedure is also in King’s interest since he would be liable for the additional costs and attorney’s fees incurred during any proceedings on remand. Under these circumstances, we award the government damages of $1,246.
AFFIRMED and SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
. The statute states in pertinent part:
No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority ... until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary or his delegate, according to the provisions of law in that regard____
26 U.S.C. § 7422(a).
. In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F. 2d 1206 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), this court adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. Id. at 1209.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stubbs v. Comm'r OF Internal Revenue Serv., 797 F.2d 936 (11th Cir. 1986)…frivolous appeal. As this Court has noted previously, this procedure is in the appellant’s interest as he would be liable for the additional costs and attorney’s fees incurred during any proceedings on remand to the tax court. King v. United States, 789 F. 2d 883, 884-85 (11th Cir. 1986). AFFIRMED and SANCTIONS IMPOSED. . Tax Court Rule 90(c) authorizes the tax court to treat the matters in a request for admissions as "admitted” unless a response is made within 30 days after the service date of the request…
-
Stoecklin v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 865 F.2d 1221 (11th Cir. 1989)…orney’s fees. Stoecklin failed to argue against such an award in his reply brief. Where an appeal is frivolous, we may award damages and costs in a set amount instead of remanding the case to assess costs and attorneys’ fees. King v. United States, 789 F. 2d 883, 884-85 (11th Cir.1986). We find that the facts and law upon which the IRS bases its claim of deficiencies were almost wholly uncontested. Stoecklin, a certified public accountant for over thirty years, however, has advanced arguments on appeal that…
-
United States v. Morse, 532 F.3d 1130 (11th Cir. 2008)…frivolous contentions.” Id. at 1084-85. While we are reluctant to impose sanctions on pro se litigants, Woods v. IRS, 3 F. 3d 403, 404 (11th Cir.1993), we have imposed sanctions on pro se litigants in certain situations, see King v. United States, 789 F. 2d 883, 884 (11th Cir.1986) (imposing sanctions on a pro se litigant who was warned that his claims were mer-itless); see also Bonfiglio v. Nugent, 986 F. 2d 1391, 1394-94 (11th Cir.1993) (imposing sanctions on a pro se litigant who was also an attorney);…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bonner v. City OF Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981)
- United States v. Felt & Tarrant Mfg. Co., 283 U.S. 269 (U.S. 1931)
- Rock Island v. United States, 254 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1920)
- Zernial v. United States, 714 F.2d 431 (5th Cir. 1983)
- Thompson v. United States, 332 F.2d 657 (5th Cir. 1964)
- Dixie Margarine Co. v. Shaefer, 139 F.2d 221 (6th Cir. 1943)
- Singer v. United States, 321 U.S. 791 (U.S. 1944)
- Kelley v. Am. Sugar Ref. Co., 321 U.S. 791 (U.S. 1944)