O'Hara v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM ORDER GRANTING 2 Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSING the IRS from this case; DENYING AS MOOT 5 Motion for Summary Judgment as to the IRS; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 5 Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Comptroller; directing that the Clerk shall ISSUE summonses that Plaintiff serve the Comptroller of Maryland within 21 days. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 11/2/2015. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 11/3/15)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUIlT
DlSTIlICT OF MAIlYLAI'iD
DE!'<'NISM. O'HARA,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No. TDC-14-4044
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE and
COMPTROLLER OF MARYLAND,
Respondents.
ME~10RANDUM
On December 31,2014,
OIUJER
Dennis M. O'Hara, who is self.rcpresented,
filed a Petition for
\Veil of Mandamus against the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") and the
Comptroller of Maryland ("the Comptroller").
ECF No. I. Pending before the Court is the
United States' Motion to Dismiss, filed on behalf of the IRS. ECF NO.2. Also pending before
the Court is O'Hara's Motion for Summary Judgment.
ECF NO.5. The Court has reviewed the
pleadings and briefs, and no hearing is necessary. See D. Md. Local R. 105.6. For the reasons
set forth below, the United States' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and O'Hara's
Motion for
Summary Judgment is DENIED AS MOOT.
IlACKGROUI'iD
In his Petition, O'Hara requests that the Court grant declaratory relief and enjoin the IRS
and the Comptroller
from collecting unpaid taxes from him.
In support, O'Hara cites the
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. ~ 2201 (2012), the Due Process of Clauses of the United
States Constitution and the Maryland Declaration of Rights, criminal statutes relating to the
deprivation of federal rights under color of law, 18 U.S.c. ~~ 241, 242 (2012), and various
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, see, e.g., 26 U.S.C.
SS 6330,
7491 (2012). O'Hara also
requests that the IRS and Comptroller remove "all data base entries" relating to his tax liability
and "cease and desist" from the "false broadcast to Maryland administrative agencies that the
petitioner has an uncontested tax liability."
Pet. Writ Mandamus 11. O'Hara has also filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment, in which he seeks the same relief under the theory that the IRS
violated the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Although neither defendant has been properly served, the
United States has filed a Motion to Dismiss and Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Because the Comptroller of Maryland has not been served, the Motions arc construed as relating
to the claims against the IRS only.l
IlISCUSSION
The IRS argues that Court should dismiss this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) because (1) it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over O'lIara's
the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.c.
S 2201;
S
claims under
7421 (2012), and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.
(2) the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the United States, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2);
and (3) there was insufficient service of process, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). As set forth below, the
Court grants the Motion based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and therefore does not
reach the remaining arguments.
It is unclear whether the summonses O'liara submitted to the Court were physically returned
to O'Hara for service. Accordingly, the Court declines to address the argument that the
Complaint should be dismissed for insufficient service of process, and it will send summonses
back to O'Hara to allow him to serve the Comptroller of Maryland.
1
2
I.
Legal Standard
Because it is the plaintiff who chooses the forum, it is the plaintiffs
burden to show that
subject matter jurisdiction exists. Davis v. Pak, 856 F.2d 648, 650 (4th Cir. 1988). On a Rule
12(b)(1) motion, the Court will dismiss the complaint if it does not allege facts upon which
subject matter jurisdiction can be based.
Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 192 (4th Cir.
2009). When there is a facial challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, "all the facts alleged in the
complaint are assumed to be true and the plaintiff, in effect, is afforded the same procedural
protection as he would receive under a Rule 12(b)(6) consideration."
Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d
1213, 1219 (4th Cir. 1982). As such, complaints filed by pro se plaintiffs are "to be liberally
construed" and "must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers." Erickson v. Pardl/s, 551 U.S. 89,94 (2007).
II.
Anti.lnjunction
Act
The IRS asserts that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
because the Anti.
Injunction Act generally deprives federal courts of jurisdiction to enjoin the United States from
collecting taxes. The Anti.lnjunction Act provides that "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."
26 U.S.c. ~ 7421(a).
So
long as the Anti.lnjunction Act applies, federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief.
Judicial Watch. Inc. v. Rossolti, 317 F.3d 401, 405.07 (4th Cir. 2003). "The manifest purpose of
~ 7421(a) is to permit the United States to assess and collect taxes alleged to be due without
judicial intervention, and to require that the legal right to the disputed sums be determined in a
suit for refund."
Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1,7 (1962); In re
Leckie Smokeless Coal Co., 99 F.3d 573, 584 (4th Cif. 1996).
3
The Anti-Injunction Act is not limited to the literal collection of ta,
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?