Regardless of whether the court construes the Plaintiff’s “illegal seizure of property claim” as a traditional tax refund claim, as an illegal exaction, or as a criminal allegation, the court does not have jurisdiction. A tax refund claim is a classic example of an ille 163, 80 S.Ct. 630, 4 L.Ed.2d 623 (1960) (“[F]ull payment of an illegal assessment is a condition upon the jurisdiction of a District Court to entertain a suit for refund[.]”). Second, a plaintiff must file a ecessary to invoke the court’s jurisdiction over tax refund claims. Plaintiffs partial payment of a tax liability through levies totaling $3,599.70 on a deficiency of $27,930.73 does not meet the full payment prerequisite. See Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63, 75-76, 78 S.Ct. 1079, 2 L.Ed.2d 1165 (1958) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to plead that,
holding that full payment of the assessment is also required for tax refund suits brought in the united states court of federal claims holding that an injured employee is only entitled to one full recovery but where an employee does not receive the full satisfaction of payment for their injury they may pursue the other avenue holding that the full payment rule literally requires full not partial payment and rejecting the argument that a partpayment remedy is necessary when a taxpayer is too poor to pay the full amount of the tax holding that it was not the taxpayers responsibility to pursue the different tax units to which the illegally levied county tax was proportioned as the taxpayer was entitled to recover the full amount of the tax from the county the collecting entity holding that the full payment rule is applicable to refund suits in the court of federal claims