The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stengel, J.
Deborah Slutter brought this case against the United States of America seeking the return of $20,000 which she offered in compromise for the full discharge of her tax indebtedness for tax years 2003, 2004, and 2005. The Internal Revenue Service rejected the offer initially and on appeal, and applied the sum to the $57,242.67 she owed the government for those tax years. The defendant has filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the following reasons, I will grant the motion and enter judgment in favor of the defendant.
On August 28, 2007, with the assistance of a certified public accountant, Miss Slutter submitted IRS Form 656,*fn1 entitled Offer in Compromise, to the Internal Revenue Service together with a lump-sum payment of $20,000. See Compl. ¶ 4; see also Pl. Ex. A. Three months later, the government rejected the offer and retained the money. Id. ¶ 5. A month later, Miss Slutter appealed the decision but her appeal was denied the following April.*fn2 She received notice from the Internal Revenue Service that part of the $20,000 payment was used to satisfy her liability for tax year 2003, and the remaining amount, i.e., $9,649.45, was characterized as an overpayment and applied toward her liability for tax year 2004. Id. ¶¶ 6, 7; see also Compl. Ex. D at 3. Miss Slutter then filed this complaint characterizing the government's decision to retain the lump sum offer as an "outrageous abuse of discretion and a violation of its own regulations."
II. STANDARD FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[a]fter the pleadings are closed -- but early enough not to delay trial -- a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." The applicable standard on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as the standard applied to a motion filed pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6). Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2004)). Such a motion cannot be granted "unless the moving party has established that there is no material issue of fact to resolve, and that it is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law." Rosenau v. Unifund Corp., 539 F.3d 218, 221 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Jablonski v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 863 F.2d 289, 290-291 (3d Cir.1988)). In reviewing a 12(c) motion, the court must view the facts in the pleadings and the inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.
The first obstacle to Miss Slutter's recovery is the government's entitlement to sovereign immunity. The United States is immune from suit, unless it consents to be sued by waiving its sovereign immunity. Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 160 (1981); see also United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 (1976) (the United States, including its agencies and its employees, can be sued only to the extent that it has expressly waived its sovereign immunity). Moreover, when a plaintiff seeks to sue the United States, she may not rely on the general federal question jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but must identify a specific statutory provision that waives the government's sovereign immunity from suit. Such a waiver must be "unequivocally expressed," and any waiver will be strictly construed in favor of the sovereign. United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 33-34 (1992); see also Clinton County Comm'rs v. United States EPA, 116 F.3d 1018, 1021 (3d Cir. 1997) (same). Where the sovereign has waived immunity, no suit can be maintained unless it is in exact compliance with the terms of the statute under which the sovereign has consented to be sued. United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 (1969). A plaintiff bears the burden of asserting specific provisions waiving the sovereign immunity of the United States. Holloman v. Watt, 708 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1983).
Miss Slutter asserts that jurisdiction is conferred on this court by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). See Compl. ¶ 3. That section provides that the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of:
(1) Any civil action against the United States for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority or any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal-revenue laws.
28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). The defendant insists that Miss Slutter has not established that an explicit waiver of the United States' sovereign immunity exists because the cited statute is a general grant of jurisdiction to the court and is not a cause of action by itself. I do not agree.
The United States Supreme Court recognized that 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) waives the government's sovereign immunity from suit by authorizing federal courts to adjudicate "any civil action against the United States for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegal assessed or collected." United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 530 (1995). Despite its spacious terms, however, Section 1346(a)(1) must be read in conformity with other statutory provisions placing requirements or restrictions on such actions which limit and determine the scope of this grant of jurisdiction. Koss, et al. v. United States of America, 69 F.3d 705, 707 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 601 (1990)). In its alternative argument, the defendant suggests that this action be considered a claim for a tax refund, and that § 1346(a)(1) be read in conformity with 26 U.S.C. § 7422.*fn3 I am not persuaded.
In order to bring a suit for refund under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) and 26 U.S.C. § 7422, the taxpayer must first exhaust her administrative remedies by paying the tax assessment fully and then timely filing a claim for refund with the Internal Revenue Service. See 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a); Dalm, 494 U.S. at 601-602; Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63, 68 (1958); Koss, 59 F.3d at 708. As the defendant points out, Miss Slutter has not fulfilled either of these jurisdictional prerequisites, and her claim would fail.
Nevertheless, I do not agree with the defendant that Miss Slutter is seeking a tax "refund" as that term is typically used in tax cases. Miss Slutter is not seeking the return by the government of excess taxes that she paid. Instead, she availed herself of a legal mechanism outlined in the Internal Revenue Code which allowed her to present the government an offer-in-compromise of her tax liability. It is that payment of $20,000 of which she seeks the return due to the government's rejection of her offer, not any excess taxes paid. Thus, the $20,000 cannot be characterized as a traditional tax ...