United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Central Division
NANETTE K. LAUGHREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a case brought under 26 U.S.C. § 7431 by Plaintiff
Joseph Allen May, D.D.S., pro se, who seeks damages
from the Defendants for making allegedly unauthorized
disclosures of his tax return information. Defendant United
States of America has moved under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to
dismiss the claims against it, on the basis that the claims
are untimely and that May has otherwise failed to state a
claim that falls under the United States' waiver of
sovereign immunity. Doc. 19. The United States further argues
that the claims against the remaining Defendants, the
Internal Revenue Service, IRS Special Agent Joel Wilson, and
Unknown IRS Agents, should be dismissed because the United
States is the only entity that may be sued under §
7431, and that May's request for
non-monetary relief is not permitted under § 7431.
moves for leave to file amended suggestions in opposition to
the United States' motion to dismiss, and submitted his
proposed amended suggestions with his motion for leave. Docs.
29 and 29-1.
motion for leave is granted. The United States' motion to
dismiss is granted.
states that he “had a history of problems with the IRS
for failure to file in 1992.” Doc. 1 (Complaint) p. 3,
alleges that on April 7, 2014, Special Agent Wilson and
another IRS agent came to his office “demanding that
[he] stop his dental practice of treating patients for an
unscheduled visit, ” read him a Miranda
warning in front of his patients, told him that he was under
criminal investigation, and issued IRS administrative
subpoenas to his corporation. Doc. 1 (Complaint) p. 3, ¶
13(a)-(d). May complied with the administrative subpoenas
later in 2014. Id., p. 4, ¶ 15.
next alleges that “SA Wilson and other agents made
unauthorized disclosures to individuals and persons in other
United States agencies in violation of 26 U.S.C. §
7431.” Id., p. 3, ¶ 14.
“[i]n 2015, SA Wilson issued Federal Grand Jury
subpoenas to discover possible tax crimes by the
Plaintiff.” Id., p. 3, ¶ 15. May states
that he complied with the Grand Jury subpoenas in May of
May alleges that “[a]round sometime in October 2016, an
un-identified IRS Special Agent returned all of the
Plaintiff's records which had been subpoenaed by the
Federal Grand Jury as no crime could be found to support a
federal indictment.” Id., p. 5, ¶ 21.
filed his Complaint in this case on August 22, 2017. He seeks
$1, 000 per unauthorized disclosure, actual damages for lost
business income, attorney fees, and punitive damages, as well
as an order requiring the IRS to issue him a letter stating
that he is no longer under criminal investigation for the tax
years 2005 through 2016. Id., p. 12.
a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government
and its agencies from suit.” FDIC v. Meyer,510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994) (citations omitted). A waiver of
sovereign immunity is strictly construed in favor of the
United States, and the party bringing suit bears the burden
of demonstrating waiver. Snider v. United States,
468 F.3d 500, 509 (8th Cir. 2006); VS Ltd.
P'ship v. HUD,235 F.3d 1109, 1112 (8th
Cir. 2000); and Murray v. Murray, 558 F.2d 1340,
1341 (8th Cir. 1977). If the party bringing suit
fails to do so, then the claim must be dismissed. United
States v. Mitchell,445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980). See
also United States ...