Over Plaintiffs’ Refund Claim. The June 4, 2009 Second Amended Complaint also could be construed as alleging a claim for tax refund, because Plaintiffs request the return of taxes that they allegedly paid. Sec. Am. Compl. at 1-2. The court, however, does not have jurisdiction over this claim, because Plaintiffs have failed to pay the taxes owed in full. 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a). Plaintiffs insist that they fully paid the taxes in intiffs’ Takings Claim. Although Plaintiffs also argue the court has jurisdiction “as described in 28 U.S.C. § 1491, for a claim for just compensation for the taking of property [ ] by the government,” as a matter of law, tax collection is not a cognizable taking under the Fifth Amendment. U.S. Shoe Corp. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). As the United States Court of Federal Claims
holding unemployment taxes accrued when employees were terminated not when the amount of compensation taxes are determinable holding that taxes are not private property that can be physically taken by the government holding that taxes were a claim against the estate that had to be filed in probate court thus reversing an order requiring heirs to pay taxes on estate property because the district court did not have jurisdiction holding that when federal government acquires property through condemnation it must account for state and local property taxes interest and penalties holding petitioner could not deduct real estate taxes imposed on property he did not own because these taxes were not imposed on him