Anderson

Anderson v. United States

Good Law
220 F. App'x 479
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 26, 2007No. 04-17505California618 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Lawrence F. Anderson appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his action seek *481 ing a tax refund and damages from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), see Comm’r of Internal Revenue v. Ewing, 439 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

Under the principles of sovereign immunity, the United States is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued, “and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction to to entertain the suit.” United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 608 , 110 S.Ct. 1361 , 108 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990) (quotations omitted). A statute of limitations requiring that a plaintiff bring suit against the government within a certain time limit is a term limiting the court’s jurisdiction. See id.

Anderson claimed damages and requested a refund for taxes paid on January 18, 1996, when the IRS executed the levy on his individual retirement account with Sufro & Company. Under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (d)(3), a two year statute of limitations applies to his damages claim. He brought this action on…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.