NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`JIANGLIN ZHOU, JIE SHEN,
`Plaintiffs-Appellants
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2018-1012
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
`Claims in No. 1:16-cv-00884-TCW, Judge Thomas C.
`Wheeler.
`
`______________________
`
`Decided: March 15, 2018
`______________________
`
`JIANGLIN ZHOU, JIE SHEN, Palo Alto, CA, pro se.
`
`
`
`
`JOHN SCHUMANN, Tax Division, United States De-
`
`partment of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-
`appellee. Also represented by RICHARD E. ZUCKERMAN,
`JOAN I. OPPENHEIMER.
`______________________
`
`Before LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
`
`

`

`
`
` 2
`
` ZHOU v. UNITED STATES
`
`PER CURIAM.
`Appellants Jianglin Zhou and Jie Shen (together,
`“Appellants”) appeal a decision of the United States Court
`of Federal Claims (“the Claims Court”) granting the
`government’s motion for summary judgment. The Claims
`Court concluded that there was no genuine issue of mate-
`rial fact regarding whether Appellants had overpaid their
`personal income taxes for 2006 and 2007. The Claims
`Court concluded—as the government had argued—that
`there was no overpayment. Zhou v. United States, 133
`Fed. Cl. 322, 327 (2017). Because Appellants have not
`met their burden to demonstrate an overpayment of
`income taxes, we affirm.
`BACKGROUND
`On their 2006 joint federal income tax return, Appel-
`lants reported their total income as $262,850, and their
`total tax due as $54,422. Appellants claimed income tax
`withholding credits totaling $77,893. The Internal Reve-
`nue Service (“IRS”) posted an account credit of $23,531
`based on this reporting. But Appellants only had with-
`held $57,425 in federal income tax; the remainder of the
`amount Appellants claimed as federal tax withholding
`credits consisted of their Social Security and Medicare tax
`withholdings. The IRS reduced Appellants’ account credit
`by $20,468 accordingly—the difference between the
`withholding claimed by Appellants and the amount of
`income tax actually withheld from Appellants’ paychecks.
`As to Appellants’ 2007 joint federal income tax return,
`Appellants reported their total income as $267,217, and
`their total tax due as $50,539. Appellants reported they
`had $49,222 in federal income tax withholdings and that
`they had made a $5,000 payment. Appellants requested
`and received a refund of $3,683. Again, however, Appel-
`lants included their Social Security and Medicare with-
`holdings in the total reported withholding, but had only
`withheld $34,696 from their wages. Upon discovery of
`
`

`

`ZHOU v. UNITED STATES
`
`3
`
`this discrepancy, the IRS reduced Appellants’ account
`credit by $14,526.
`The IRS issued a notice of deficiency to Appellants in
`2010, which included adjustments to various reported
`expenses, contributions, credits, and deductions among
`other items. Relevant to this appeal, the IRS listed a
`$22,827 deficiency for 2006 and a $25,348 deficiency for
`2007.
`Appellants filed a petition in the United States Tax
`Court (“the Tax Court”) disputing the notice of deficiency.
`The parties settled before trial and stipulated to amounts
`that reflected Appellants’ tax deficiency and adjusted
`credits. For the 2006 tax year, the Tax Court entered the
`parties’ stipulation (“the Tax Court Decision”) that “there
`is no deficiency in income tax due from, nor overpayment
`due to, [Appellants] for the taxable year 2006.” Suppl.
`App’x (“S.A.”) 200. The 2006 stipulation further specified
`that Appellants had an “underpayment of tax” of $158.55.
`S.A. 227. This stipulation also stated that “[i]t is hereby
`stipulated that interest will be assessed as provided by
`law.” S.A. 228. For the 2007 tax year, the Tax Court
`entered the parties’ stipulation that “there is a deficiency
`in income tax due from [Appellants] for the taxable year
`2007 in the amount of $319.00.” S.A. 200. The Tax Court
`Decision specified that interest due on any deficiency was
`not included in the amount listed in the decision, and that
`interest would be assessed on the deficiency owed by
`Appellants. S.A. 201.
`The IRS credited Appellants’ account to reflect the
`stipulation and Tax Court Decision. For 2006, the IRS
`applied an adjustment of $16,051 and reversed penalties
`and interest it had previously assessed, leaving a balance
`due of $1,843.14. For 2007, the IRS applied an adjust-
`ment of $6,943.78, and after a payment made by Appel-
`lants, the IRS calculated a balance due of $10,089.17.
`Appellants failed to pay these amounts, and the IRS
`
`

`

`
`
` 4
`
` ZHOU v. UNITED STATES
`
`subsequently levied funds from Appellants’ Vanguard
`brokerage account to satisfy the tax liabilities it imposed.
`Appellants then filed a complaint before the Claims
`Court seeking the return of the levied funds and any
`interest, in the amount of $12,929.25. The government
`filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the
`Tax Court Decision resolved only Appellants’ tax deficien-
`cies for 2006 and 2007, not their outstanding tax liability
`for those years. Under the government’s view, the IRS
`properly levied Appellants’ property to satisfy Appellants’
`tax liability. Appellants argued in response that their tax
`liabilities for 2006 and 2007 were resolved by the stipu-
`lated decision, and they requested time for discovery into
`various aspects of the Tax Court Decision. Appellants
`also raised various constitutional due process claims.
`The Claims Court granted the government’s motion
`for summary judgment. The court first determined that it
`could not exercise jurisdiction over Appellants’ constitu-
`tional claims as monetary damages are not available
`under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Zhou,
`133 Fed. Cl. at 325–26. The Claims Court also denied
`Appellants’ request for discovery, concluding that the
`stipulation and related Tax Court decision were unam-
`biguous and therefore discovery would not affect the
`court’s interpretation of these documents. Id. at 326.
`After review of the stipulation and decision, the
`Claims Court concluded that the stipulated decision did
`not resolve all of Appellants’ tax liability for 2006 and
`2007. Id. at 323, 327. The Claims Court explained that
`the stipulation and Tax Court Decision specified that
`there was no deficiency in tax for 2006, and a deficiency of
`$319.00 for 2007. Id. at 326. The Claims Court found
`that this language determined Appellants’ deficiency
`amounts for these tax years as well as the overpayment
`amount for 2006. Id. But, the Claims Court explained
`that the question before it was whether Appellants had
`
`

`

`ZHOU v. UNITED STATES
`
`5
`
`underpaid their taxes in these years—and the Claims
`Court found the Tax Court Decision was silent on the
`issue of whether Appellants had paid their outstanding
`income tax liability. Id. Upon review of the stipulation
`and tax transcripts, the Claims Court determined that the
`agreed-upon amounts were credited to Appellants’ ac-
`count. The Claims Court explained that Appellants
`accrued interest and penalties related to their reporting
`errors that the stipulation and Tax Court Decision did not
`require the IRS to abate. Id. at 327. As Appellants were
`liable for that debt, the Claims Court determined that the
`IRS properly levied their brokerage account, as the IRS
`was not required to abate any interest or penalties to be
`compliant with the Tax Court Decision. Id. As Appel-
`lants had not demonstrated that they overpaid their
`taxes, the Claims Court determined there was no genuine
`dispute as to any material fact in the case, and granted
`summary judgment for the government. Id.
`Appellants timely appealed the Claims Court’s deci-
`sion. The parties do not dispute that we have jurisdiction
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3) to review Appellants’ chal-
`lenge that the Claims Court erred in finding no genuine
`dispute of material fact as to Appellants’ alleged over-
`payment of their tax liability.1
`DISCUSSION
`This court reviews a decision of the Claims Court
`granting summary judgment de novo. Ladd v. United
`
`
`1 To the extent Appellants challenge the Claims
`Court’s dismissal of their constitutional claims on appeal,
`the Tucker Act does not confer jurisdiction to the Claims
`Court to consider these claims because they do not man-
`date payment of money by the government. Brown v.
`United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997); LeBlanc
`v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
`
`

`

`
`
` 6
`
` ZHOU v. UNITED STATES
`
`States, 713 F.3d 648, 651 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Rule 56(a) of
`the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims
`(“RCFC”) states that summary judgment is appropriate “if
`the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to
`any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
`as a matter of law.” We review the Claims Court’s “denial
`of a discovery request . . . for an abuse of discretion.”
`Freeman v. United States, 875 F.3d 623, 631 (Fed. Cir.
`2017) (citing Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States,
`521 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
`First, we conclude the Claims Court did not abuse its
`discretion in denying Appellants’ request for discovery
`under RCFC 56(d) in response to the government’s sum-
`mary judgment motion. RCFC 56(d) permits a party
`opposing summary judgment discovery when it “shows by
`affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it
`cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.”
`Appellants requested six months for discovery related to
`the parties’ stipulation and the Tax Court Decision.
`As the Claims Court has explained, “Rule 56(d) ‘pro-
`vides for comparatively limited discovery for the purpose
`of showing facts sufficient to withstand a summary judg-
`ment motion.’” RQ Squared, LLC v. United States, 119
`Fed. Cl. 751, 758 (2015) (quoting First Nat’l Bank of Ariz.
`v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 265 (1968)). Accordingly,
`“[t]he non-moving party will not be allowed to conduct
`discovery that has no chance of leading to the denial of
`summary judgment for the movant.” Id. (citing Simmons
`Oil Corp. v. Tesoro Petroleum Corp., 86 F.3d 1138, 1144
`(Fed. Cir. 1996)). Here, the Claims Court correctly found
`that all material facts were already before the court, as it
`had the stipulation, Tax Court Decision, and Appellants’
`tax account information to review. These documents are
`unambiguous, and in the absence of an ambiguity, the
`court must rely on the language of the documents at issue
`
`

`

`ZHOU v. UNITED STATES
`
`7
`
`and may not consider extrinsic evidence. HRE, Inc. v.
`United States, 142 F.3d 1274, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 1998).2
`Second, we conclude the Claims Court did not err in
`determining that Appellants have not established that
`they overpaid their 2006 and 2007 taxes. “[A] taxpayer is
`not entitled to a refund unless he has in fact overpaid the
`particular tax.” Dysart v. United States, 169 Ct. Cl. 276,
`281 (1965). Appellants bear the burden to establish that
`they overpaid tax in a refund suit. Lewis v. Reynolds, 284
`U.S. 281, 283 (1932).
`Appellants argue on appeal that the parties reached
`an agreement on Appellants’ underpayment or overpay-
`ment of taxes in the stipulation and Tax Court Decision,
`but that the IRS failed to honor the agreement the parties
`reached. The government contends that Appellants have
`not shown they overpaid income taxes in 2006 and 2007,
`based on the agreement the parties reached as document-
`ed in the stipulation and Tax Court Decision.
`As noted, the Tax Court Decision states that Appel-
`lants had no deficiency or overpayment of income tax for
`2006, and that Appellants had a deficiency of $319.00 for
`2007. S.A. 200. The term “deficiency” is defined by
`statute as the amount by which the correct tax exceeds
`the sum of the tax listed by the taxpayer on the return
`and prior assessments, over any rebates. 26 U.S.C.
`
`
`2 Appellants also seek discovery under this rule to
`support their argument that issue preclusion applies. But
`issue preclusion cannot apply in this case. The Tax Court
`proceedings determined the amount of Appellants’ income
`tax liabilities, while the Claims Court considered whether
`Appellants had overpaid on those tax liabilities. Discov-
`ery cannot change the conclusion that these are different
`issues and therefore the Tax Court Decision cannot trig-
`ger a preclusive effect as to the Claims Court’s decision.
`
`

`

`
`
` 8
`
` ZHOU v. UNITED STATES
`
`§ 6211(a) (2016). This definition does not include pay-
`ments by the taxpayer, nor does it refer to a taxpayer’s
`tax liability. See id. As the Tax Court has explained, “the
`amount of a deficiency, whether at the time a notice of
`deficiency is issued, or at the time a decision is entered by
`[the Tax Court], turns not on what payments have been
`applied to an account, but rather on what assessments
`have been made with respect to that account.” Longino v.
`Comm’r, 105 T.C.M. (CCH) 1491, 2013 WL 1104430, at
`*25 (2013), aff’d, 593 F. App’x 965 (11th Cir. 2014).
`“Payments are not included in determining or redetermin-
`ing a deficiency, simply because they do not fit within the
`definition of a deficiency.” Hillenbrand v. Comm’r, 84
`T.C.M. (CCH) 643, 2002 WL 31779972, at *5 (2002)
`(citing, inter alia, 26 U.S.C. § 6211(a)).
`The parties’ stipulation does not resolve whether Ap-
`pellants actually paid their tax liabilities—it resolves
`Appellants’ deficiencies for the years in question, and the
`question of whether Appellants underpaid in 2006. And it
`does not address the interest and penalties imposed on
`Appellants’ tax underpayment prior to the stipulation
`date. Interest and failure to pay penalties are imposed by
`law whenever there has been an underpayment of tax for
`any period of time. See 26 U.S.C. § 6601(a) (interest on a
`tax underpayment runs from the date the tax was due
`until the date the tax is paid); 26 U.S.C. § 6651 (failure to
`file tax return or to pay tax mandates penalty).
`As the government explained in its briefing below,
`and as the Claims Court correctly noted, the IRS abated
`interest and penalties on the amount of the withholding
`credit the parties stipulated should be credited to Appel-
`lants. But, Appellants were still liable for the interest
`and penalties from the portion of the withholding credit
`they claimed on their return but to which they were not
`entitled, per the parties’ stipulation. The Claims Court
`did not err in concluding that the IRS properly levied
`
`

`

`ZHOU v. UNITED STATES
`
`9
`
`Appellants’ account to satisfy their remaining tax liabil-
`ity.
`
`CONCLUSION
`We have considered Appellants’ remaining arguments
`and conclude that they are without merit. For the rea-
`sons stated above, we affirm the Claims Court’s decision.
`AFFIRMED
`
`