Darrin Johnson, Jr. v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 1:25-cv-02117 (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2026)

For tax professionals advising clients on tax controversy and refund claims, maintaining strict adherence to statutory filing formalities is paramount. In Darrin Johnson, Jr. v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 1:25-cv-02117 (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2026), the United States District Court for the District of Maryland addressed whether a taxpayer’s addition of restrictive phrases above the signature line on an amended tax return invalidates the return for purposes of bringing a federal refund suit. Holding that qualifying or modifying the mandatory “penalties of perjury” jurat destroys the legal validity of IRS Form 1040X, the court dismissed the taxpayer’s refund complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to meet the statutory prerequisite of a “duly filed” claim under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 7422(a). This decision reinforces long-standing tax jurisprudence: tax administrative mechanics cannot be circumvented through “sovereign citizen” style disclaimers or jurat alterations.

Background and Factual Matrix

The factual background of the case involves tax year 2021. On January 31, 2025, the taxpayer, Darrin Johnson, Jr., remitted $1,543.71 in federal income taxes and associated fees to the Internal Revenue Service. Four days later, on February 3, 2025, Mr. Johnson filed his federal income tax return for 2021 on IRS Form 1040, accompanied by an amended return on IRS Form 1040X. On Form 1040X, Mr. Johnson formally requested a tax refund in the amount of $1,517.16.

Standard IRS refund forms, including Form 1040X, contain a required jurat on the final page directly preceding the signature line. The statutory jurat explicit declaration reads:

“Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have filed an original return, and that I have examined this amended return, including accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, this amended return is true, correct, and complete.”

When executing Form 1040X for tax year 2021, Mr. Johnson did not sign the jurat as printed by the IRS. Instead, he handwrote the phrase “Without Recours[e] Without Prejudice” directly above his signature line.

Subsequent administrative interactions between the taxpayer and the IRS ensued. On April 19, 2025, the IRS issued a request for a signed Schedule A (Itemized Deductions) corresponding to Mr. Johnson’s 2021 return. Mr. Johnson asserted that he mailed the requested Schedule A on or about May 3, 2025. Thereafter, on June 13, 2025, the IRS issued Letter 105C—the standard notice of claim disallowance—informing Mr. Johnson that the Service could not process his return because he “did not respond to [the IRS] notice requesting Schedule A”.

Taxpayer Claims and Requested Relief

On June 30, 2025, Mr. Johnson initiated a pro se civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, filing an amended complaint on July 5, 2025, naming the Internal Revenue Service as Defendant. In his amended complaint, Mr. Johnson sought two distinct forms of judicial relief:

Monetary Refund: A principal tax refund from the United States in the amount of $1,543.71, plus statutory accrued interest, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7422.
Declaratory Relief: A judicial order seeking that the court “Declare that Plaintiff complied with IRS Requirements and timely submitted all necessary documentation”.

The United States moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Statutory and Judicial Framework Governing Refund Actions

In evaluating the motion to dismiss, United States District Judge Adam B. Abelson analyzed the procedural standards under Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 8(a)(2), noting that mere “labels, conclusions, recitation of a claim’s elements, and naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” fail to satisfy threshold pleading requirements (ACA Fin. Guar. Corp. v. City of Buena Vista, 917 F.3d 206, 211 (4th Cir. 2019)). The court confirmed that under Fourth Circuit precedent, extrinsic documents integral to the complaint whose authenticity is undisputed—specifically Mr. Johnson’s Form 1040X and IRS Letter 105C—may be reviewed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion without converting the proceeding to summary judgment (Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 166 (4th Cir. 2016)).

The substantive threshold for maintaining a federal tax refund action is governed strictly by Section 7422(a) of the Internal Revenue Code:

“No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected . . . until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary, according to the provisions of law in that regard, and the regulations of the Secretary established in pursuance thereof.”

Under established district precedent, “If the refund claim does not meet the requirements of the Code and the regulations, the suit must be dismissed” (Oosterwijk v. United States, No. 21-cv-1151-CCB, 2022 WL 255348, at *4 (D. Md. Jan. 27, 2022)).

Two explicit legal sources establish the jurat verification mandate:

Statutory Mandate: IRC § 6065 commands that any return, statement, or document submitted under internal revenue laws “contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under penalties of perjury”.
Regulatory Requirement: Treas. Reg. § 301.6402-2 dictates that for a taxpayer to receive a refund, “The statement of the grounds and facts must be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury”.

Tax jurisprudence firmly establishes that taxpayers cannot unilaterally alter or append qualifications to standard IRS jurat declarations. In Green v. Commissioner, 95 T.C.M. (CCH) 1512, at *5 (T.C. 2008), aff’d, 322 F. App’x 412 (5th Cir. 2009), the Tax Court held:

“Signing under penalty of perjury means that a taxpayer can’t delete or alter the jurat language found in standard IRS forms.”

Similarly, in United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 834 (7th Cir. 1980), the Seventh Circuit determined:

“The forms he submitted to the I.R.S. were not returns because the declaration that the forms were completed and signed under penalty of perjury was obliterated.”

Where a taxpayer adds qualifications or reservation of rights language to a signature, the Seventh Circuit emphasized in Sloan v. Commissioner, 53 F.3d 799, 800 (7th Cir. 1995), that such modifications raise “doubt” as to whether the declaration is executed under penalty of perjury, and the IRS is “entitled to construe alterations of the jurat against the taxpayer”. As explained by the Tax Court in Sloan v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 137, 146 (1994), aff’d, 53 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 1995):

“[T]he guessing games engendered by qualifications like [Plaintiff’s] are an unreasonable impediment to the administration of the nation’s tax laws.”

The court observed that adding disclaimers such as “without recourse” or “without prejudice” is routinely rejected in non-tax contexts as well. For instance, in Maida v. United States, No. 2:24-cv-02375-RFB-MDC, 2025 WL 48934, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 7, 2025), the court held that adding “without recourse” and “without prejudice” disclaimers “contravene one of the fundamental purposes of Rule 11”. Likewise, in Bey v. Mower County Health & Human Services Office of Child Support, No. 15-cv-2728-JNE/TNL, 2015 WL 4488483, at *1 (D. Minn. July 23, 2015), the court denied an in forma pauperis application because the notation “without prejudice, without recourse” suggested the applicant was “perhaps attempting to avoid the potential consequences of untruthful answers”.

Judicial Analysis and Application to Jurat Qualification

In defense of his Form 1040X, Mr. Johnson asserted three primary arguments, all of which were rejected by the court:

First, Mr. Johnson contended that writing “Without Recours[e] Without Prejudice” above his signature did not “negate the statement that the return is true, correct, and complete,” “purport to strike the jurat,” “disclaim tax liability,” or “condition the penalties-of-perjury certification”. Judge Abelson rejected this reasoning, highlighting that qualifying language creates unacceptable uncertainty for tax administration under IRC § 6065 and Treas. Reg. § 301.6402-2. The court ruled directly:

“For these reasons, by adding the phrase ‘without recourse without prejudice’ to his signature, Plaintiff did not sign Form 1040X under penalties of perjury as required. Therefore, the form did not qualify as a return, and Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed.”

Second, Mr. Johnson argued that the government was foreclosed or estopped from asserting that Form 1040X was invalid because the IRS issued a formal statutory disallowance via Letter 105C. The court refuted this contention by distinguishing statutory signature requirements from discretionary administrative regulations:

Statutory Requirements Non-Waivable: Citing Supreme Court and Federal Circuit authority, the court held that the “IRS cannot waive” the explicit statutory signature requirement of 26 U.S.C. § 6065 (Brown v. United States, 22 F.4th 1008, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2022), citing Angelus Milling Co. v. Commissioner, 325 U.S. 293, 296–97 (1945)). As the Supreme Court articulated in Angelus Milling, 325 U.S. at 296, “Insofar as Congress has made explicit statutory requirements, they must be observed and are beyond the dispensing power of Treasury officials”.
Regulatory Waiver Unsubstantiated: While procedural requirements in Treas. Reg. § 301.6402-2 may be waived under narrow circumstances, the taxpayer must make an “unmistakable” showing that “the Commissioner has in fact seen fit to dispense with his formal requirements and to examine the merits of the claim” (Angelus Milling, 325 U.S. at 297–98). Because IRS Letter 105C merely advised that the Service could not process Form 1040X without Schedule A and never addressed the substantive merits of the refund claim, the IRS did not examine the merits and did not waive regulatory requirements.

Third, regarding Mr. Johnson’s prayer for declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, the court pointed out that the Declaratory Judgment Act explicitly excludes federal tax disputes from its scope. Except in narrow statutory circumstances where Congress provides no alternative remedy, federal courts are barred from granting declaratory relief in tax matters (Sigmon Coal Co. v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 291, 300 (4th Cir. 2000), aff’d sub nom. Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438 (2002); In re Leckie Smokeless Coal Co., 99 F.3d 573, 582 (4th Cir. 1996)). Because Congress provided an explicit refund remedy under IRC § 7422, the court dismissed the claim for declaratory relief under Rule 12(b)(6).

Holding and Key Practice Takeaways for Tax Practitioners

The District Court granted the United States’ Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) in its entirety, disposing of all monetary and declaratory claims.

For CPAs, Enrolled Agents, and tax attorneys, Johnson v. IRS yields critical operational takeaways regarding tax compliance and client representation:

Absolute Integrity of the Jurat: The IRS jurat is non-negotiable. Any alteration, deletion, or supplementary reservation of rights (e.g., “without recourse,” “UCC 1-308,” “all rights reserved”) invalidates the tax return or refund claim as a matter of law under IRC § 6065 and Treas. Reg. § 301.6402-2.
Jurisdictional Bar to Refund Suits: An invalidly executed Form 1040 or Form 1040X fails the “duly filed” requirement of IRC § 7422(a), barring subsequent judicial recourse in U.S. District Court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Non-Waiver of Statutory Formalities: Practitioners cannot rely on administrative correspondence (such as IRS Letter 105C or automated letters) to argue that the IRS “waived” defectively signed returns. Statutory execution mandates are beyond the power of IRS personnel to waive.

Prepared with assistance from Gemini Notebook.