Samadi v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service

Filing 51

ORDER AND OPINION adopting the 36 Report and Recommendation, as supplemented and clarified in the 45 Supplemental Report and Recommendation, granting the Defendant's 23 motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff's clai ms regarding his 2002, 2003, and 2004 tax refunds, denying the Defendant's 23 motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff's claims regarding his 2008 tax refund, and recommitting the matter to the Magistrate Judge for additional pretrial handling. Signed by Honorable Margaret B. Seymour on 1/18/2017. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Mike H. Samadi,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
United States of America,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

C/A No. 3:16-0562-MBS-PJG

ORDER AND OPINION

Plaintiff Mike H. Samadi, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint on
February 24, 2016, alleging that Defendant United States of America miscalculated amounts due
with respect to his income taxes. Plaintiff seeks tax refunds for the years 2002 and 2003; a partial
refund for 2004; and a refund for 2008, as well as compensatory damages for his time and expenses
attempting to communicate with Defendant. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule
73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pretrial
handling.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on August 16, 2016, asserting that the court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction and that Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for relief. By order filed
August 17, 2016, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), Plaintiff was
advised of the dismissal procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately.
Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on October 17, 2016, to which Defendant filed a reply on
October 27, 2016.
On November 28, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which

she observed that plaintiff must file suit within two years of the date the notice of disallowance is
mailed to the plaintiff from the Secretary of the Treasury. See 26 U.S.C. § 6532. The Magistrate
Judge further noted that a plaintiff seeking to institute a law suit for the recovery of a tax refund must
first file a claim for a refund with the Secretary of the Treasury. See 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). The
Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s claims regarding his 2002 and 2003 tax refunds are
untimely. The Magistrate Judge further determined that Plaintiff failed to file an administrative
claim as to his 2004 tax refund. For these reasons, the Magistrate Judge found that the court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims concerning his 2002, 2003, and 2004 tax refunds.
As to Plaintiff’s 2008 tax refund, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff stated a
plausible claim for relief. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendant’s motion
to dismiss be granted with respect to the 2002, 2003, and 2004 tax refunds, and that Defendant’s
motion to dismiss be denied with respect to the 2008 refund.
On December 8, 2016, Plaintiff objected to the Report and Recommendation regarding the
2002 and 2003 tax refunds. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant extended Plaintiff’s time to bring an
action when it provided him with disallowment letters dated August 26, 2014. According to
Plaintiff, his complaint timely was filed within two years of the August 26, 2014 letter.
Defendant filed a reply in part to the Report and Recommendation on December 14, 2016.
Defendant argued that Plaintiff and his former spouse filed two amended joint income tax returns
for tax year 2004, each reporting a refund owed. Defendant stated that it acknowledged the returns
constituted an administrative claim for refund, and that full refunds were issued. Defendant
contended that, consequently, Plaintiff’s claim for a 2004 tax refund should be denied as moot.
Defendant requested the Magistrate Judge to clarify the rationale for her ruling with regard to the
2

2004 tax refund.
On December 22, 2016, Defendant filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s objection
regarding his 2002 and 2003 tax refunds. Defendant notes, among other things, that Plaintiff was
sent two notices of disallowance regarding the claims for refund for tax years 2002 and 2003, the
first of these dated May 22, 2008. Defendant asserts that the second notices did not extend the twoyear period for filing a refund action before the federal court. See 26 U.S.C. § 6532(a)(4).
Defendant therefore asserts that the Magistrate Judge did not err in determining that Plaintiff’s
claims for his 2002 and 2003 taxes are untimely.
Also on December 22, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Supplemental Report and
Recommendation in which she made the following clarification:
To the extent [Plaintiff] bases his 2004 tax refund claim on a third claim for
a tax refund, [Plaintiff] failed to file a second amended tax return for that year, as
demonstrated by the certified official record provided by the defendant in an
attachment to its motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court would not have subject
matter jurisdiction over such a claim.
To the extent [Plaintiff] alleges he received only partial payment for the
refunds he sought for tax year 2004, he has failed to state a plausible claim upon
which relief can be granted. Specifically, [Plaintiff] fails to provide any facts or
bases that would support a plausible claim that his 2004 tax refund was incorrect.
ECF No. 45, 1-2 (internal citations omitted).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). This court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with

3

instructions. Id. This court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the
Magistrate Judge’s report to which objections have been filed. Id.
As an initial matter, the court notes that Plaintiff did not object to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation regarding his 2004 tax refund, and that no party objected to the Magistrate Judge’s
clarification as set forth in the Supplemental Report and Recommendation. Further, neither party
objected to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation regarding the 2008 tax refund. In the absence
of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must “only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The court discerns no clear error regarding Plaintiff’s 2004 and 2008 tax refunds.
As to Plaintiff’s objection regarding his 2002 and 2003 tax refund, 26 U.S.C. § 6532(a)(4)
provides:
(4) Reconsideration after mailing of notice.--Any consideration, reconsideration, or
action by the Secretary with respect to such claim following the mailing of a notice
by certified mail or registered mail of disallowance shall not operate to extend the
period within which suit may be begun.
In this case, Plaintiff first was sent disallowance letters regarding his 2002 and 2003 tax
refunds on May 22, 2008. See ECF No. 23-4, 1-8. The letters specifically informed Plaintiff:
If you do not agree with our decision, you may file suit to recover tax, penalties, or
other amounts, with the United States District Court having jurisdiction or with the
United States Claims Court. These courts are part of the judiciary branch of the
federal government and have no connection with the Internal Revenue Service.
The law permits you to do this within 2 years from the date of this letter. If you
decide to appeal our decision first, the 2-year period still begins from the date of this
letter. . . .
Id. at 3-4, 7-8.
4

Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the second disallowance letters issued on August 26, 2014,
did not extend the time for filing a cause of action with the federal court. Plaintiff’s objection is
without merit.
The court adopts the Report and Recommendation, as supplemented and clarified, and
incorporates both filings herein by reference. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted as to
Plaintiff’s claims regarding his 2002, 2003, and 2004 tax refunds. Defendant’s motion to dismiss
is denied as to Plaintiff’s claims regarding his 2008 tax refund. The matter is recommitted to the
Magistrate Judge for additional pretrial handling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
January 18, 2017

5