BOARDMAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
ELIZABETH BOARDMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Douglas H. Shulman, Defendant.
No. 2:12-cv-00639-MCE-GGH.
United States District Court, E.D. California.
December 6, 2012.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERMORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.
Through this action, Plaintiff Elizabeth Boardman seeks a permanent injunction preventing Defendant Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") from using its tax collection procedures to infringe on her religious rights. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's policies run afoul of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA").
Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).1 Additionally, Defendant moves the Court to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff filed her complaint on March 13, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant's motion to dismiss was filed on July 29, 2012. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant's motion (ECF No. 11), and Defendant filed a timely reply (ECF No. 12). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motions are GRANTED.2 As a lifelong Quaker and peace activist, Plaintiff "refuses voluntarily to pay the percentage of her federal income taxes that is directed towards war." (ECF No. 1 at 1.) In fact, Plaintiff takes the position that "paying for war is repugnant to her religion and to her conscience." (Id. ¶ 35.) "The religious practice of antiwar tax retention, often called `war tax resistance,' is an established [Quaker] practice." (Id. ¶ 16.) Quakers, like Plaintiff, suffer spiritual pain from war and adhere to a commandment against killing. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 29.) Plaintiff has held numerous leadership positions within Quaker organizations, and she has written several books and articles about Quaker customs and teachings. (Id. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff has also been involved in several forms of antiwar activism. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8.) These include writing letters, holding vigils, participating in marches and traveling to Iraq. (Id.)
When filing her federal tax returns for the 2007 and 2008 tax years, Plaintiff fully completed the returns with accurate information but remitted only about half of her federal income tax liability. (ECF No. 11 at 1.) In a letter attached to the tax returns, Plaintiff explained that "her conscience and religious beliefs would not allow her to pay the full amount due." (ECF No. 1 at 1-2.) Plaintiff's letter also offered evidence that the withheld funds were on deposit with a financial institution and maintained that she would pay the funds if they were allocated toward peaceful purposes. (Id. at 2.) Further correspondence between Plaintiff and Defendant resulted in Defendant stating that Plaintiff's justification was frivolous and not supported by law. (Id. ¶¶ 33, 36.) Once Plaintiff's argument was deemed "frivolous," the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 ("TRHCA") allowed Defendant to deny any additional administrative or judicial review. (Id. ¶ 30.) As a result, Plaintiff's demand for a Tax Court determination was unsuccessful. (Id. ¶¶ 39, 40.)
1. All further references to "Rule" or "Rules" are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.
2. Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefing. E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).
3. The factual assertions in this section are based on the allegations in Plaintiff's complaint unless otherwise specified. (ECF No. 1.)
4. Plaintiff put forth several additional arguments as to why the Act should not bar the Court's jurisdiction over this case. After examining Plaintiff's theories, the Court finds them unpersuasive.
5. There appears to be some confusion over Defendant's use of the word "frivolous." Plaintiff mistakenly believes that Defendant utilizes "frivolous" as a means of discouraging religion. The Court finds that Defendant uses "frivolous" in its legal context, referring to an argument lacking a legal or factual basis. (ECF No. 12 at 7.)
6. Although the Court has duly considered Plaintiff's various arguments opposing the Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), these arguments are insufficient to warrant further discussion.