United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge.
statute, the United States has waived its sovereign immunity
for claims by taxpayers based on reckless, intentional, or
negligent disregard of Internal Revenue Code provisions by
Internal Revenue Service employees while collecting taxes, so
long as the taxpayer has exhausted administrative remedies
and sues within two years after the cause of action accrues.
Plaintiff Mohamed Sameh Ahmed has sued the United States
under this statute, contending that IRS employees recklessly
or intentionally disregarded relevant law when they seized
his commercial property to collect purported unpaid taxes and
attempted to sell it to satisfy back taxes that he did not
owe. Because Mr. Ahmed's claims accrued more than two
years before he raised them in this action, the motion to
dismiss will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed.
History and Allegations in the Second Amended
operative complaint, Mr. Ahmed alleges that in 2006 and 2007
the IRS erroneously assessed him for unpaid employment taxes
and then in 2015 wrongfully seized his commercial property in
Woodleaf, North Carolina to collect these taxes. Doc. 22 at
¶¶ 7-8. The IRS tried to sell the seized property
for less than fair market value by public auction on three
separate occasions in 2015 and 2016 without success.
Id. at ¶¶ 9- 12. In July 2016, Mr. Ahmed
asked the IRS to release the levy and return his property.
Id. at ¶ 12. He also made other requests for
installment agreements that the IRS did not grant.
Id. The IRS released the property in September 2016
after Mr. Ahmed proved he had paid employment taxes and after
he paid $2, 840.49 to the IRS. Id. at ¶¶
August 1, 2017, the IRS received an administrative claim from
Mr. Ahmed seeking civil damages. See Doc. 23-2. He
contended that the IRS prematurely levied a lien on his
property and then failed to release the lien in violation of
Internal Revenue Code provisions and regulations. See
Id. The IRS denied the claim on August 28, 2017.
See Doc. 22 at ¶ 6.
August 2, 2018, Mr. Ahmed filed the initial complaint in this
action pro se against the United States, alleging
mistakes and violations during the IRS's initial
assessment and levy more than two years earlier. Doc.
1. After the United States filed a motion to dismiss
based on the statute of limitations and other grounds,
see Doc. 11, he filed an amended complaint in
November 2018. Doc. 14. The first amended complaint continued
to reference problems with the initial assessment and levy,
and it also identified at least one problem with an attempted
sale on August 8, 2016. Id. at ¶ 41. After the
United States again moved to dismiss on statute of
limitations and other grounds, Doc. 15, Mr. Ahmed received
leave to file a second amended complaint. Text Order
second amended complaint, filed on April 15, 2019, Mr. Ahmed
abandoned his claims arising out of the initial levy,
apparently recognizing the time bar. See Doc. 22.
Instead, he set forth detailed facts about various actions by
the IRS after that initial levy. Those facts, construed
liberally,  assert seven separate violations of the
Internal Revenue Code by IRS employees:
1. A failure to release his property after an unsuccessful
August 8, 2016, public auction, in violation of 26 U.S.C.
§ 6335(e)(1)(D). Id. at ¶ 10.
2. A postponement of the property's sale following the
unsuccessful August 8, 2016, public auction to a date after
the statutory time limit, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §
6335(e)(2)(F). Id. at ¶ 10.
3. A planned September 7, 2016, sale of the property at the
IRS office in Atlanta, Georgia instead of the property's
own county, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6335(d).
Id. at ¶ 11.
4. A failure to release the levy upon all or part of his
property after his July 18, 2016 request even though the
property's fair market value exceeded his tax liability,
in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6343(a)(1)(E). Id.
at ¶ 12.
5. A refusal to release the property from seizure after the
September 7, 2016 advertised sale date until Mr. Ahmed made a
one-time payment of $2, 455.13, in violation of 26 U.S.C.
§ 6335. Id. at ¶ 12.
6. False statements to Mr. Ahmed and others on
“numerous occasions” to “accomplish”
the sale of his property misrepresenting that his tax
liability had been verified, as required by 26 U.S.C. §
6331(j)(2)(A), in violation of an unspecified ...