Rhosan K. Conzelman, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Michael A. Conzelman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action related to his income tax liability for tax year 2012. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Dexter v. Colvin, 731 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2013) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Conzelman’s claim for a tax refund under 26 U.S.C § 7422 because Conzelman failed to file his claim within three years of filing his 2012 return. See 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a) (setting forth limitations period for refund claim); United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347, 353, 117 S.Ct. 849, 136 L.Ed.2d 818 (1997) (equitable tolling does not apply to § 6511’s time limitations for refund claims).

The district court properly dismissed Conzelman’s claims for damages under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 because Conzelman failed to allege facts sufficient to show any unauthorized collection activity. See Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Miller v. United States, 66 F.3d 220, 223 (9th Cir. 1995) (the assessment or tax determination process does not constitute an act of collection and is therefore, not actionable under § 7433).

AFFIRMED.