HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 FERDINAND HAFNER, Case No. 2:25-cv-01170-RAJ 11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v. 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 14 Defendant. 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion,” 17 Dkt. # 13) of Defendant United States of America (the “Government”). The Court has 18 reviewed the Motion, Plaintiff’s Response, Dkt. # 15, and Defendant’s Reply, Dkt. # 16, 19 and the balance of the record. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the 20 Motion. 21 II. BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff Ferdinand Hafner (“Mr. Hafner”) is the beneficiary and former 23 administrator of decedent Kurt Hafner’s estate. Dkt. # 1 at 3. Mr. Hafner filed this action 24 alleging tax overpayments and the Government’s failure to issue tax refunds. Id. at 4. 25 26 1 Mr. Hafner now attempts to recover those tax overpayments, alleging they belong to him 2 as the beneficiary of the estate. Id. Mr. Hafner also seeks damages arising from the 3 Government’s alleged unauthorized collection conduct. Id. Additionally, Mr. Hafner 4 seeks declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the Government from continuing its 5 alleged unauthorized collection efforts. Id. at 29. Finally, Mr. Hafner seeks an award of 6 costs and fees. Id. The Government filed this Motion to dismiss for lack of subject- 7 matter-jurisdiction. Dkt. # 13. In the Motion, the Government accepts the truth of Mr. 8 Hafner’s allegations but argues that the Government is immune from this lawsuit and that 9 Mr. Hafner does not have standing to pursue the claims in this case. Id. Mr. Hafner filed 10 a Response to the Motion, Dkt. # 15, and the Government filed a Reply in support of the 11 Motion. Dkt. # 16. 12 III. LEGAL STANDARD 13 Under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint may be 14 dismissed for “lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). When the 15 defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, “the plaintiff has the 16 burden of proving jurisdiction in order to survive the motion.” Tosco Corp. v. 17 Communities for a Better Env’t, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other 18 grounds by Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010). A “jurisdictional attack may be 19 facial or factual.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). 20 A facial attack is one where the defendant “accepts the truth of the plaintiff's 21 allegations but asserts that they ‘are insufficient on their face to invoke federal 22 jurisdiction.’” Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Safe Air, 23 373 F.3d at 1039). To resolve a facial challenge, the district court, accepting the 24 plaintiff’s allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, 25 “determines whether the allegations are sufficient as a legal matter to invoke the court’s 26 1 jurisdiction.” Id. The Government specifies that it is making a facial attack and argues 2 that Mr. Hafner lacks standing to bring this case. Dkt. # 13 at 4. 3 IV. DISCUSSION 4 “Standing is a threshold jurisdictional question in every federal case.” Bruce v. 5 United States, 759 F.2d 755, 757 (9th Cir. 1985). If the plaintiff fails to demonstrate 6 standing, “the complaint is subject to dismissal.” Jones v. L.A. Cent. Plaza LLC, 74 F.4th 7 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 2023). Mr. Hafner, as the beneficiary of the estate, seeks refunds of 8 tax overpayments made by the decedent and the estate. Dkt. # 1 at 20–21, 27–28. Under 9 26 U.S.C. § 6402, if a person has made an overpayment, “the Secretary . . . shall . . . 10 refund any balance to such person.” 28 U.S.C. § 6402(a) (emphasis added). Thus, to 11 establish standing to recover refunds for tax overpayments under Section 6402, Mr. 12 Hafner must show that he made the overpayments. See Bruce, 759 F.2d at 758 n.2 (stating 13 that Section 6402 provides that refunds are to be made to the person who made the 14 overpayment); Sorenson v. Sec’y of Treasury of U.S., 475 U.S. 851, 860 (1986) (“All 15 refunds made by the Secretary under § 6402(a) are paid to ‘the person who made the 16 overpayment.’ The phrase merely identifies the person entitled to the refund . . . .”). Mr. 17 Hafner does not allege that he made the overpayments. Indeed, Mr. Hafner alleges that 18 the decedent and the estate made the overpayments and that he brought this action as the 19 beneficiary of the estate. Dkt. # 1 at 4; Dkt. # 15 at 2. Therefore, Mr. Hafner lacks 20 standing to recover under Section 6402. 21 Mr. Hafner also seeks the recovery of amounts allegedly wrongfully levied. Dkt. 22 # 1 at 21–23, 28. Under 26 U.S.C. § 7426, any person, other than the taxpayer, “who 23 claims an interest in or lien on” the property and “such property was wrongfully levied 24 upon” may file a civil action. 26 U.S.C. § 7426(a)(1). The Government argues that the 25 levy occurred while the decedent was still alive, and, therefore, Mr. Hafner did not have 26 1 “an interest” in the property at the time of the levy. Dkt. # 13 at 8–9. As the 2 Government’s challenge is one of subject-matter jurisdiction, it is Mr. Hafner who bears 3 the burden to establish jurisdiction exists in order to survive the Government’s Motion. 4 Tosco Corp., 236 F.3d at 499. In applying the wrongful levy standard, “‘state law 5 controls in determining the nature of the legal interest which the taxpayer had in the 6 property.’” Aquilino v. United States, 363 U.S. 509, 513 (1960) (citing Morgan v. 7 Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 309 U.S. 78, 82 (1940)). Mr. Hafner cites no authority 8 under Washington law illustrating that a beneficiary to an estate has “an interest” in levied 9 funds where the decedent taxpayer was still alive at the time of the levy. See generally 10 Dkt. # 15; see also Williams v. I.R.S., No. C05-5371RBL, 2005 WL 2757920, at *2 (W.D. 11 Wash. Oct. 25, 2005) (granting IRS’s motion to dismiss after concluding that plaintiff 12 “did not have ‘an interest’ in property at the time of the levy” pursuant to state law 13 requirements and therefore “fail[ed] the first portion of the standing test for challenging 14 a levy under 26 U.S.C. § 7426”). Based on the present record, Hafner has not met his 15 burden to rebut the Government’s argument that he lacked “an interest” in the property 16 at the time of the levy. Therefore, the Court concludes that Mr. Hafner lacks standing to 17 pursue this claim under Section 7426. 18 Mr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 FERDINAND HAFNER, Case No. 2:25-cv-01170-RAJ 11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v. 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 14 Defendant. 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion,” 17 Dkt. # 13) of Defendant United States of America (the “Government”). The Court has 18 reviewed the Motion, Plaintiff’s Response, Dkt. # 15, and Defendant’s Reply, Dkt. # 16, 19 and the balance of the record. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the 20 Motion. 21 II. BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff Ferdinand Hafner (“Mr. Hafner”) is the beneficiary and former 23 administrator of decedent Kurt Hafner’s estate. Dkt. # 1 at 3. Mr. Hafner filed this action 24 alleging tax overpayments and the Government’s failure to issue tax refunds. Id. at 4. 25 26 1 Mr. Hafner now attempts to recover those tax overpayments, alleging they belong to him 2 as the beneficiary of the estate. Id. Mr. Hafner also seeks damages arising from the 3 Government’s alleged unauthorized collection conduct. Id. Additionally, Mr. Hafner 4 seeks declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the Government from continuing its 5 alleged unauthorized collection efforts. Id. at 29. Finally, Mr. Hafner seeks an award of 6 costs and fees. Id. The Government filed this Motion to dismiss for lack of subject- 7 matter-jurisdiction. Dkt. # 13. In the Motion, the Government accepts the truth of Mr. 8 Hafner’s allegations but argues that the Government is immune from this lawsuit and that 9 Mr. Hafner does not have standing to pursue the claims in this case. Id. Mr. Hafner filed 10 a Response to the Motion, Dkt. # 15, and the Government filed a Reply in support of the 11 Motion. Dkt. # 16. 12 III. LEGAL STANDARD 13 Under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint may be 14 dismissed for “lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). When the 15 defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, “the plaintiff has the 16 burden of proving jurisdiction in order to survive the motion.” Tosco Corp. v. 17 Communities for a Better Env’t, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other 18 grounds by Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010). A “jurisdictional attack may be 19 facial or factual.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). 20 A facial attack is one where the defendant “accepts the truth of the plaintiff's 21 allegations but asserts that they ‘are insufficient on their face to invoke federal 22 jurisdiction.’” Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Safe Air, 23 373 F.3d at 1039). To resolve a facial challenge, the district court, accepting the 24 plaintiff’s allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, 25 “determines whether the allegations are sufficient as a legal matter to invoke the court’s 26 1 jurisdiction.” Id. The Government specifies that it is making a facial attack and argues 2 that Mr. Hafner lacks standing to bring this case. Dkt. # 13 at 4. 3 IV. DISCUSSION 4 “Standing is a threshold jurisdictional question in every federal case.” Bruce v. 5 United States, 759 F.2d 755, 757 (9th Cir. 1985). If the plaintiff fails to demonstrate 6 standing, “the complaint is subject to dismissal.” Jones v. L.A. Cent. Plaza LLC, 74 F.4th 7 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 2023). Mr. Hafner, as the beneficiary of the estate, seeks refunds of 8 tax overpayments made by the decedent and the estate. Dkt. # 1 at 20–21, 27–28. Under 9 26 U.S.C. § 6402, if a person has made an overpayment, “the Secretary . . . shall . . . 10 refund any balance to such person.” 28 U.S.C. § 6402(a) (emphasis added). Thus, to 11 establish standing to recover refunds for tax overpayments under Section 6402, Mr. 12 Hafner must show that he made the overpayments. See Bruce, 759 F.2d at 758 n.2 (stating 13 that Section 6402 provides that refunds are to be made to the person who made the 14 overpayment); Sorenson v. Sec’y of Treasury of U.S., 475 U.S. 851, 860 (1986) (“All 15 refunds made by the Secretary under § 6402(a) are paid to ‘the person who made the 16 overpayment.’ The phrase merely identifies the person entitled to the refund . . . .”). Mr. 17 Hafner does not allege that he made the overpayments. Indeed, Mr. Hafner alleges that 18 the decedent and the estate made the overpayments and that he brought this action as the 19 beneficiary of the estate. Dkt. # 1 at 4; Dkt. # 15 at 2. Therefore, Mr. Hafner lacks 20 standing to recover under Section 6402. 21 Mr. Hafner also seeks the recovery of amounts allegedly wrongfully levied. Dkt. 22 # 1 at 21–23, 28. Under 26 U.S.C. § 7426, any person, other than the taxpayer, “who 23 claims an interest in or lien on” the property and “such property was wrongfully levied 24 upon” may file a civil action. 26 U.S.C. § 7426(a)(1). The Government argues that the 25 levy occurred while the decedent was still alive, and, therefore, Mr. Hafner did not have 26 1 “an interest” in the property at the time of the levy. Dkt. # 13 at 8–9. As the 2 Government’s challenge is one of subject-matter jurisdiction, it is Mr. Hafner who bears 3 the burden to establish jurisdiction exists in order to survive the Government’s Motion. 4 Tosco Corp., 236 F.3d at 499. In applying the wrongful levy standard, “‘state law 5 controls in determining the nature of the legal interest which the taxpayer had in the 6 property.’” Aquilino v. United States, 363 U.S. 509, 513 (1960) (citing Morgan v. 7 Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 309 U.S. 78, 82 (1940)). Mr. Hafner cites no authority 8 under Washington law illustrating that a beneficiary to an estate has “an interest” in levied 9 funds where the decedent taxpayer was still alive at the time of the levy. See generally 10 Dkt. # 15; see also Williams v. I.R.S., No. C05-5371RBL, 2005 WL 2757920, at *2 (W.D. 11 Wash. Oct. 25, 2005) (granting IRS’s motion to dismiss after concluding that plaintiff 12 “did not have ‘an interest’ in property at the time of the levy” pursuant to state law 13 requirements and therefore “fail[ed] the first portion of the standing test for challenging 14 a levy under 26 U.S.C. § 7426”). Based on the present record, Hafner has not met his 15 burden to rebut the Government’s argument that he lacked “an interest” in the property 16 at the time of the levy. Therefore, the Court concludes that Mr. Hafner lacks standing to 17 pursue this claim under Section 7426. 18 Mr. Hafner also alleges that he is entitled to damages for alleged unauthorized 19 collection of federal tax under 26 U.S.C. § 7433. Dkt. # 1 at 23–26, 28. Section 7433 20 provides that if an Internal Revenue Service officer or employee disregards any provision 21 under this title or any regulation promulgated under this title when collecting from a 22 taxpayer, “such taxpayer may bring a civil action for damages against the United States.” 23 26 U.S.C. § 7433(a) (emphasis added). Mr. Hafner was not the taxpayer when the IRS 24 allegedly engaged in unauthorized collection of federal tax. Rather, the decedent and the 25 estate were the taxpayers. See, e.g., Ferrel v. Brown, 847 F. Supp. 1524, 1528 (W.D. 26 1 Wash. 1993), aff’d, 40 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 1994) (explaining that standing under Section 2 7433 requires that plaintiff “be ‘such taxpayer’ from whom the IRS collected the tax,” 3 i.e., “the direct taxpayer, not a third party”); Allied/Royal Parking L.P. v. United States, 4 166 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Ferrel with approval). Therefore, Mr. Hafner 5 lacks standing to pursue damages under Section 7433. 6 Similarly, Mr. Hafner seeks damages for alleged unauthorized disclosure of 7 returns or return information under 26 U.S.C. § 7431. Dkt. # 1 at 26–27, 29. This Section 8 similarly requires the “taxpayer” to make the claim. Under Section 7431, if a United 9 States officer or employee knowingly or negligently “discloses any return or return 10 information with respect to a taxpayer in violation of any provision of [26 U.S.C. § 6103], 11 such taxpayer may bring a civil action for damages against the United States in a district 12 court of the United States.” 26 U.S.C. § 7431(a)(1) (emphasis added); see, e.g., Ruiz 13 Rivera v. I.R.S., 226 F. Supp. 2d 345, 349 (D.P.R. 2002), aff’d, 93 F. App’x 244 (1st Cir. 14 2004) (“Once again, the phrase ‘such taxpayer’ indicates that only the taxpayer whose 15 ‘return’ or ‘return information’ has been allegedly disclosed has standing to sue.”); Clark 16 v. I.R.S., No. CIV. 06-00544SPK-LEK, 2007 WL 1374742 (D. Haw. Mar. 1, 2007) 17 (finding that plaintiff, as the beneficiary of the estate, was not the taxpayer within the 18 meaning of “with respect to a taxpayer” and “such taxpayer” under Section 7431). 19 Therefore, Mr. Hafner lacks standing to pursue damages under Section 7431. 20 Finally, Mr. Hafner requests (1) declaratory and injunctive relief, and (2) a 21 prevailing party award for costs and fees under 26 U.S.C. § 7430. Dkt. # 1 at 29. Mr. 22 Hafner fails to establish that he has standing to pursue this relief. 23 Because the Court concludes that Mr. Hafner does not have standing for the 24 foregoing reasons, the Court does not reach the Government’s alternative argument of 25 sovereign immunity. See Dkt. # 13 at 5. 26 1 As a separate matter, the Court notes that the Government utilized a footnote that 2 consumes one-half of a page to advance legal argument in its Motion. See Dkt. # 13 at 3 10 n.5 (footnoted paragraph is one-half of the page and contains citations and legal 4 argument). The Court strongly disfavors footnoted citations and legal arguments, as they 5 serve as an end-run around page limits and formatting requirements dictated by the Local 6 Rules. See Local Civil Rules, W.D. Wash. LCR 7(e). Moreover, several courts have 7 observed that “citations are highly relevant in a legal brief” and including them in 8 footnotes “makes brief-reading difficult.” Wichansky v. Zowine, 2014 WL 289924, at *1 9 n.1 (D. Ariz. Jan. 24, 2014); see also Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov’t, 10 Kentucky, 2024 WL 56938, *3 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 4, 2024). The Court strongly discourages 11 the parties from footnoting their legal citations or arguments in any future 12 submissions. See Kano v. Nat’l Consumer Co-op Bank, 22 F.3d 899, 899–900 (9th Cir. 13 1994). 14 V. CONCLUSION 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, 16 Dkt. # 13, and DISMISSES the Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 17 The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 18 19 Dated this 13th day of February, 2026. 20
21 A
22 23 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 24
25 26