Timothy Sheridan v. USA

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: RENDELL, GREENAWAY JR. and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. [No document was attached to initial entry. The document has been uploaded and the notice has been resent.]--[Edited 01/21/2014 by CJG]

Case: 13-3054

Document: 003111512501

Page: 1

Date Filed: 01/21/2014

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-3054
___________
TIMOTHY SHERIDAN,
Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-13-cv-00768)
District Judge: Honorable Ronald L. Buckwalter
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 3, 2014
Before: RENDELL, GREENAWAY, JR. and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges
(Filed: January 21, 2014)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Timothy Sheridan claimed $1,000,000 as a loss due to theft or patent infringement
on his income tax returns for 2009, 2010, and 2011. Those returns were subsequently
audited by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), which found that there had been no

Case: 13-3054

Document: 003111512501

Page: 2

Date Filed: 01/21/2014

judicial determination of patent infringement and damages and that Sheridan had not
established that any loss was actually sustained. It determined that he was not entitled to
the deductions and therefore served him with a notice of deficiency in the amount of
$43,167.
Sheridan’s supposed losses apparently relate to his patent for a smokeless tobacco
pipe, U.S. Patent No. 7,415,982 (filed Feb. 15, 2001), which he claims has been infringed
upon by the people of the United States. He estimates that he has lost $20 billion dollars
as a result of that infringement, which he argues constitutes an “effective tax imposed.”
He filed a pro se complaint seeking to enjoin the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) from
auditing him further or collecting the taxes identified in his notice of deficiency, as well
as an order directing the agency to issue him a refund on behalf of the United States and
its people. The District Court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
and Sheridan now appeals.1
The Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a), states that, with limited exceptions
not applicable here, “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of
any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the
person against whom such tax was assessed.” Although the Act does not apply if it is
clear that under no circumstances could the Government ultimately prevail in its claim of
tax liability, Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 7 (1962), the
1

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and our review is plenary. See
Gould Elecs. Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000).
2

Case: 13-3054

Document: 003111512501

Page: 3

Date Filed: 01/21/2014

exception does not apply to Sheridan’s case. The Act likewise would not apply if
Sheridan had no alternative remedy, see South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367, 378
(1984), but he could either petition the Tax Court pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6213 or, after
paying the assessed taxes, file a refund suit under 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). Thus, the Act
applies in this case, and the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain
Sheridan’s claims regarding the tax deficiency identified in his 2009, 2010, and 2011
returns. Sheridan’s claim that his estimated $20 billion in losses constitutes a tax for
which he is owed a refund is nonsensical. Even if it were not, the District Court was
barred from entertaining this aspect of the suit under 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a) because
Sheridan did not first file a claim for this refund with the IRS.
We will affirm the District Court’s dismissal of Sheridan’s suit.2

2

We agree with the District Court’s determination that any amendment to this complaint
would have been futile. Cf. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir.
2002).
3