Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McKinzy v. Internal Revenue Service

United States District Court, D. Kansas

March 19, 2014

MICHAEL E. McKINZY, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ERIC F. MELGREN, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 11) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendant argues that Plaintiff is not entitled to his 2012 federal income tax overpayment because it was credited against Plaintiff's existing federal income tax liabilities. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff overpaid his 2012 federal income taxes by $929. On April 15, 2013, Defendant credited the $929 against Plaintiff's existing federal income tax liability from 2001.[1] On September 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas claiming that Defendant wrongfully refused to refund his 2012 federal income tax overpayment. On December 2, 2013, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

II. Legal Standard

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a defendant may move for dismissal of any claim for which the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.[2] Upon such motion, the court must decide "whether the complaint contains enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"[3] A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads facts sufficient for the court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct.[4] The plausibility standard reflects the requirement in Rule 8 that pleadings provide defendants with fair notice of the nature of claims as well as the grounds on which each claim rests.[5] Under 12(b)(6), the court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint, but need not afford such a presumption to legal conclusions.[6] Viewing the complaint in this manner, the court must decide whether the plaintiff's allegations give rise to more than speculative possibilities.[7] If the allegations in the complaint are "so general that they encompass a wide swath of conduct, much of it innocent, then the plaintiffs have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.'"[8]

A 12(b)(6) motion must be converted to a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 if "matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court."[9] The Tenth Circuit has recognized that "a motion to dismiss should be converted to a summary judgment motion if a party submits, and the district court considers, materials outside the pleadings."[10]

III. Analysis

The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff overpaid his 2012 federal income taxes by $929. There is also no dispute that Defendant did not refund any of Plaintiff's $929 overpayment. The issue in this case is whether Defendant's refusal to refund Plaintiff is lawful.

Section 6402(a) of the Internal Revenue Code gives Defendant authority to "credit the amount of [an overpayment] against any liability in respect of an internal revenue tax on the part of the person who made the overpayment."[11] Prior to filing his 2012 federal income tax return, Plaintiff's 2001 federal income tax liabilities remained in excess of $929.[12] Upon receipt of Plaintiff's 2012 federal income tax return, Defendant credited $929 to Plaintiff's 2001 liabilities.[13]

Defendant acted lawfully under ยง 6402(a) when it applied Plaintiff's - overpayment against existing tax liability. Plaintiff has no right to a refund of his 2012 federal income taxes. Therefore, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Judgment (Doc. 10) is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.