Aetna v. U.S., 444 U.S. 164, 179-180 (1979). Plaintiff must then show that the United States, through a valid act of Congress, took that private property interest for public use without just compensation. See Short v. US., 50 F.3d 994, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 1995). To satisfy the first requirement, Plaintiffs argue that its invalidly extracted money is a property interest protected under the Fifth Amendment citing Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 571-72 (1972) (“[T]he property interests protected by procedural due process extend beyond actual ownership of real estate, chattels, or money.”). Generally, taxation is not considered to be a taking because the monies paid are not a recognizable protected property interest. See, e.g., United States v. Sperry Corp., 493 U.S. 52, 53 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Commercial Builders v. Sacramento, 941 F.2d
holding that a courier fee charged at settlement did not violate tila holding that a deduction of a tribunal user fee from a settlement award is not a taking recognizing discretion of district court in determining a fee award holding a court may eonsider settlement negotiations for the purpose of deciding a reasonable attorney fee award holding that a charge for the use of a public wharf was a user fee rather than a tax for constitutional purposes