characterizes this civil action as a challenge to “a wrongful offset” that did not comply with 26
U.S.C. § 6402 and 31 C.F.R. § 285.2. Compl. at 2. In addition, he deems “[t]he offset . . . in
violation of Amendment 8; excessive fine; of the US Constitution[.]” Id. (emphasis removed).
The plaintiff demands a declaratory judgment and “relief under [26 U.S.C. § 7433,]” specifically,
“the return of the funds . . . wrongfully taken, damages and/or expenses because of the offset,
and punitive relief.” Id.
The offset to which the plaintiff refers pertains to then-outstanding student loan debt
(“pre-consolidated debt”) owed the United States Department of Education and the Missouri
Department of Higher Education. See Mem. in Support of United States’ Mot. to Dismiss [ECF
No. 7-1] (“Def.’s Mem.”) at 2. IRS records show an overpayment to the plaintiff of $1,822 for
tax year 2011. Id. By letter dated September 26, 2012, the Department of the Treasury,
Financial Management Service (“FMS”), notified the plaintiff that it had “applied this
overpayment toward [his] outstanding student loan debt.” Id., Ex. B. At that time, the plaintiff’s
pre-consolidated debt was in default status, see Compl. at 2, and the FMS advised the plaintiff
that it “[could not] resolve issues regarding debts with other agencies,” Def.’s Mem., Ex. B.
Subsequently, in August 2013, the plaintiff’s pre-consolidated “student loan debt was
marked as satisfied in full by the Missouri Department of Higher Education and consolidated
into a new loan.” Def.’s Mem. at 2; see Compl. at 2 (“The previous account was a student loan
which was in default (until August 2013) during the fraudulent return.”). The plaintiff’s income
tax return for tax year 2011, which he filed in September 2013, “reported an overpayment of
$634.” Def.’s Mem. at 2-3. “As a result, the Department of Treasury partially reversed its . . .
setoff against [the plaintiff’s] original student loan so that only $ 634.00 was credited toward that
pre-consolidated debt,” id. at 3, that is, in January 2014 it “decreased the $1,822.00 applied in