Jacobs v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: July 8, 2022
• Docket: 21-6170
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 21-6170 Document: 010110707551 Date Filed: 07/08/2022 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 8, 2022 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court ERIKA JACOBS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 21-6170 (D.C. No. 5:21-CV-00055-C) OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION, (W.D. Okla.)

Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Erika Jacobs, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of

her suit against the Oklahoma Tax Commission (OTC). Exercising jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

Ms. Jacobs was a part-year resident of Oklahoma in 2018 and 2019. She filed

tax returns and paid Oklahoma income taxes for both years. But the OTC disagreed

with her calculations of what she owed, asserting that (1) for the 2018 tax year, she

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 21-6170 Document: 010110707551 Date Filed: 07/08/2022 Page: 2

owed an additional $25, and (2) for the 2019 tax year, she was not entitled to the

$209 refund she claimed, and she owed another $134.

Ms. Jacobs filed suit against the OTC in federal court, complaining that the

OTC had recalculated her taxes. For relief, she asked the court to order the OTC to

issue her a $209 refund for the 2019 tax year and to declare her taxes paid in full for

the 2018 tax year. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the district court

dismissed the suit without prejudice because “[a]t its core, [the] case challenge[d] a

determination of her tax liability by the State of Oklahoma,” R. at 30, and therefore it

was barred by the Tax Injunction Act (TIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1341.

We review the dismissal order de novo. See Chamber of Com. of U.S. v.

Edmondson, 594 F.3d 742, 760-61 (10th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of applicability

of TIA); Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of

dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). Because Ms. Jacobs proceeds pro se, we

construe her filings liberally. See Diversey v. Schmidly, 738 F.3d 1196, 1199

(10th Cir. 2013).

Ms. Jacobs asserts the district court erred in dismissing her suit because (1) the

court had federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) the action

was not barred by the TIA. But the TIA may apply even where a complaint suggests

federal-question jurisdiction. See Brooks v. Nance, 801 F.2d 1237, 1239 (10th Cir.

1986) (“Basing a complaint upon alleged violation of civil rights . . . or of the

Federal Constitution will not avoid the prohibition contained in Section 1341.”

2 Appellate Case: 21-6170 Document: 010110707551 Date Filed: 07/08/2022 Page: 3

(internal quotation marks omitted)). Because Ms. Jacobs’ second argument is

dispositive of the appeal, we need not address her first argument.

The TIA provides that “[t]he district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or

restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain,

speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1341. This provision “erects a broad barrier to the jurisdiction of federal courts.”

Chamber of Com., 594 F.3d at 761; see also Marcus v. Kan. Dep’t of Revenue,

170 F.3d 1305, 1309 n.2 (10th Cir. 1999) (“In accordance with . . . Supreme Court

precedents, we treat the Tax Injunction Act as a bar to federal jurisdiction over cases

involving the enjoinment, suspension, restraint, levy, or collection of taxes imposed

by states.”). And the TIA bars not only injunctive relief, but also declaratory relief

and damages suits regarding state tax matters. See Marcus, 170 F.3d at 1309;

Brooks, 801 F.2d at 1239.

Ms. Jacobs’ complaint requests that the district court order the OTC to issue

her a refund for the 2019 tax year and to declare her tax liabilities as paid in full for

the 2018 tax year. Thus, the suit plainly seeks to enjoin or restrain the assessment,

levy, and collection of Oklahoma income tax from Ms. Jacobs for those tax years.

Further, this court previously has determined that Oklahoma’s state courts provide a

plain, speedy and efficient remedy for tax disputes. See Hill v. Kemp, 478 F.3d 1236,

1253-54 (10th Cir. 2007) (“We have heard no convincing reason to suppose that

Oklahoma fails to provide its citizens sufficient process for challenging its tax laws;

very much to the contrary.”); Cities Serv. Gas Co. v. Okla. Tax Comm’n, 656 F.2d

3 Appellate Case: 21-6170 Document: 010110707551 Date Filed: 07/08/2022 Page: 4

584, 587-88 (10th Cir. 1981) (concluding that Oklahoma’s judicial remedy for tax

disputes sufficed to support application of the TIA). Accordingly, the TIA deprived

the district court of jurisdiction to hear the case.

We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Ms. Jacobs’ complaint.

Entered for the Court

Nancy L. Moritz Circuit Judge