9th Circuit affirms dismissal of attorneys' tax lawsuit: they missed the 2-year deadline and never…
Mirch v. United States
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit affirms dismissal of attorneys' tax lawsuit: they missed the 2-year deadline and never filed a required administrative claim first, so federal courts had no jurisdiction.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by Kevin and Claire Mirch against the United States for allegedly improper tax collection activities. The court found two independent reasons the case could not proceed: the Mirches admitted they never filed the required written administrative claim before suing, and their complaint was filed more than two years after the last alleged collection activity, making it too late under the applicable statute of limitations. Both defects stripped the district court of jurisdiction, so the dismissal with prejudice was affirmed.
Who it affects
- This ruling directly affects taxpayers
- Including self-represented individuals
- Including filing an administrative claim
- Meeting a two-year deadline
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 13, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 13, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 13, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Kevin and Claire Mirch, both attorneys representing themselves, sued the United States under a federal law that allows taxpayers to seek damages when the IRS intentionally, recklessly, or negligently disregards tax laws during collection activities. The district court dismissed their case, and they appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit identified two separate reasons why the lawsuit could not move forward. First, before filing a lawsuit under that federal law, a taxpayer must submit a written administrative claim to the IRS. The Mirches conceded they never did this. Because the United States government generally cannot be sued unless it has expressly waived its immunity from suit, and because filing that administrative claim is a prerequisite to waiving immunity here, the district court had no jurisdiction to hear the case. Second, the law also imposes a two-year time limit for filing suit. The last collection activity the Mirches described in their complaint occurred on October 27, 2021. They did not file their initial complaint until April 22, 2024, which was more than two years later. The court noted that this time limit is jurisdictional, meaning it cannot be extended even by equitable tolling arguments, which the Mirches had raised. Because neither defect could be fixed by simply rewriting the complaint, the Ninth Circuit agreed that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate. The decision was unanimous among the three-judge panel, and no dissent was noted. Going forward, this decision reinforces that taxpayers who believe the IRS violated the law during tax collection must both file an administrative claim first and file suit within two years of the challenged activity, or federal courts will lack the power to hear their case at all.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 13 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEVIN J. MIRCH, Attorney; Mrs. MARIE No. 25-814 CLAIRE MIRCH Esquire, Attorney, D.C. No. 3:24-cv-00721-TWR-DDL Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Todd W. Robinson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 8, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: RAWLINSON and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER, District Judge.*** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. Kevin Mirch and Claire Mirch (together, Plaintiffs-Appellants) appeal pro se the district court’s dismissal of their First Amended Complaint (FAC). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. On July 23, 2024, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed the FAC, asserting two claims under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 for unauthorized collection activities. The government filed a motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court granted the motion, and dismissed Plaintiffs- Appellants’ FAC with prejudice. The district court determined that it lacked jurisdiction due to Plaintiffs-Appellants’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and because the action was time-barred. Plaintiffs-Appellants timely appealed. A district court’s “dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies” is reviewed de novo. Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003). We also review de novo the district court’s ruling on the statute of limitations. See Bonelli v. Grand Canyon Univ., 28 F.4th 948, 951 (9th Cir. 2022). 1. “A Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack may be facial or factual. In a facial attack, the challenger asserts that the allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction. . . .” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). “The district court resolves a facial attack as it would a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6): 2 25-814 Accepting the plaintiff’s allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, the court determines whether the allegations are sufficient as a legal matter to invoke the court’s jurisdiction.” Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Subject to exhaustion of administrative remedies, 26 U.S.C. § 7433 “permits taxpayers to recover damages from the government for intentional, reckless, or negligent disregard of the Internal Revenue Code or Treasury Regulations in connection with the collection of any tax.” Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1187 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); see also 26 U.S.C. § 7433(a), (d)(1).1 As the district court noted, Plaintiffs-Appellants conceded that they failed to file the written claim required by 26 C.F.R. § 301.7433-1(e) prior to filing their complaint. Thus, the district court did not err in dismissing the FAC for lack of jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir. 1993), as amended; see also Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985) (stating that the United States is immune from suit unless sovereign immunity is expressly waived). 1 Plaintiffs-Appellants characterize the challenge to the FAC as a facial attack. The government responds that the characterization is immaterial because the FAC “fails as a facial and factual matter.” Therefore, we proceed on the basis that the motion to dismiss raised a facial attack. 3 25-814 2. Plaintiffs-Appellants maintain that the district court erred in deciding the statute of limitations issue after concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over the action. However, a district court always has jurisdiction to determine its jurisdiction. See Brownback v. King, 592 U.S. 209, 218 (2021). Here, the statute of limitations in 26 U.S.C. § 7433(d) is jurisdictional. See Aloe Vera of Am., Inc. v. United States, 580 F.3d 867, 870-72 (9th Cir. 2009), as amended; see also Libitzky v. United States, 110 F.4th 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 2024). Finally, the district court did not err in concluding that the action was time- barred. Section 7433(d)(3) provides for a two-year statute of limitations for actions challenging collection activity. The last collection activity alleged in the FAC occurred on October 27, 2021. Thus, the initial complaint filed on April 22, 2024 was untimely. See Bonelli, 28 F.4th at 951.2 Because this defect cannot be cured by amendment, the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint with prejudice. See Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 Plaintiffs-Appellants argue for the application of equitable tolling. However, a jurisdictional statute of limitations is not subject to equitable tolling. See Kwai Fun Wong v. Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2013), aff’d and remanded sub nom. United States v. Wong, 575 U.S. 402 (2015). 4 25-814
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.