Court rejects refund claim based on “California citizen” tax protest theory
Sophirian Kim v. United States. United States Court of Federal Claims. No. 1:26-cv-00157.
A taxpayer cannot get out of paying federal income tax by saying they are only a citizen of California and not of the United States.
Holding
The Court of Federal Claims threw out a taxpayer’s refund lawsuit for $152,871 from 2020 because her claim was based only on the argument that she was a citizen of California, not the United States, which is not a valid legal reason.
Why It Matters
This is a routine rejection of a long-discredited tax protester argument.
The decision reinforces that state citizenship and U.S. citizenship are not mutually exclusive under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Courts continue to dismiss refund claims that rely on sovereignty-style theories rather than substantive tax law arguments.
The case highlights that even pro se taxpayers must present a legally cognizable basis for a refund claim.
Key Facts
Sophirian Kim filed an amended 2020 return seeking a refund of $152,871. She reversed all previously reported income and deductions and asserted that she had no taxable income from U.S. sources because she had “never been a U.S. citizen” and was instead a “Citizen of California” or “Californian.”
Kim also submitted materials to a congressional office asserting that her citizenship status exempted her from federal tax obligations.
The government moved to dismiss, arguing that federal courts have repeatedly rejected the theory that state citizenship exempts an individual from federal taxation.
Statutory or Regulatory Framework
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of both the United States and the state where they reside.
Federal income tax applies to U.S. citizens regardless of how they characterize their citizenship status.
To obtain a tax refund, a taxpayer must show that the IRS collected tax that was not legally owed.
A complaint must state a plausible legal claim to survive a motion to dismiss.
Arguments
Taxpayer argued:
She was a citizen of California but not a citizen of the United States.
Because of that status, she was not subject to federal income tax.
The government was improperly holding her money and should return it.
Her allegations were sufficient to satisfy the pleading standard at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
Government argued:
The refund claim depended entirely on a legally frivolous theory.
Federal courts have consistently rejected claims that state citizenship exempts taxpayers from federal tax laws.
The Fourteenth Amendment forecloses the taxpayer’s position.
Because no viable legal basis for a refund existed, the complaint should be dismissed.
Court’s Reasoning
The Fourteenth Amendment makes clear that a person born in California is both a California citizen and a U.S. citizen.
Federal courts have repeatedly rejected arguments that state citizenship alone removes an individual from federal tax jurisdiction.
The taxpayer’s theory could not be reconciled with the Constitution or established precedent.
Federal tax obligations apply to U.S. citizens regardless of how they describe their citizenship status.
The taxpayer identified no alternative legal basis showing that the disputed tax was improperly collected.
A refund claim requires more than an assertion that the government possesses the taxpayer’s money. The taxpayer must show the tax was not legally owed.
The amendment would be futile because the defect was legal rather than factual. Additional facts could not cure the underlying theory.
Result
The Court of Federal Claims agreed with the government’s request to dismiss the case and ruled against the taxpayer.
The Takeaway
There was nothing new in the law here. This decision just adds to the many cases that have already rejected the idea that federal tax laws only apply to federal citizens and not to state citizens.
For lawyers and tax professionals, this case is a reminder that refund lawsuits need a solid legal argument to start. Courts will not let claims go forward if the main argument has already been rejected by the Constitution, laws, or past cases.
List of Citations
Kim v. United States (Ct. Fed. Cl. 2026) — dismisses refund claim based on California-only citizenship theory.
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1 — establishes dual U.S. and state citizenship.
Walby v. United States — rejects state-citizenship exemption arguments.
Brown v. United States — confirms state citizenship does not avoid federal tax obligations.
Lonsdale v. United States — characterizes similar arguments as patently frivolous.
Rev. Rul. 2007-22 — identifies state-sovereignty tax arguments as frivolous positions.