Mark Pellegrino, As Executor of Mark Pellegrino Estate v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MARK PELLEGRINO, AS EXECUTOR OF MARK
PELLEGRINO ESTATE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1215
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-00918-MRS, Judge Molly R. Silfen.
______________________
Decided: June 26, 2026
______________________
MARK P ELLEGRINO, Buffalo, NY, pro se.
SAMUEL P ATRICK J ONES , Civil Division, Tax Litigation
Branch, Appellate Section, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee.
______________________
Case: 26-1215 Document: 32 Page: 1 Filed: 06/26/2026

-- 1 of 5 --

PELLEGRINO v. US 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, STOLL , Circuit Judge, and
MOORE, District Judge.1
P ER CURIAM .
Mark Pellegrino appeals an order of the United States
Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint seeking
federal tax refunds on behalf of the “Mark Pellegrino Es-
tate.” Appx. 30–36.2 We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Pellegrino, identifying himself as the executor of
the “Mark Pellegrino Estate,” filed suit in the Court of Fed-
eral Claims seeking tax refunds from the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS). Appx. 31. Mr. Pellegrino alleged the estate
filed tax returns for years 2021 through 2023 showing over-
payment of at least $10 million. Id.; Pellegrino v. United
States, No. 25-918, Dkt. No. 1, 2–3 (Fed. Cl. filed Oct. 22,
2025) (“Complaint”).3 He further alleged the IRS mishan-
dled the estate’s tax returns by failing to process them
without issuing a formal notice of disallowance for any
year. Complaint at 3. He also alleged his submitted
power-of-attorney form confirmed he had authority to rep-
resent the estate as executor. See id. at 2.
1 Honorable K. Michael Moore, District Judge,
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
2 “Appx.” refers to the appendix attached to Appel-
lant’s brief. Citations to the appendix refer to the PDF
page number of Dkt No. 9.
3 Although Mr. Pellegrino’s opening brief references
alleged refund claims for tax years 2021 through 2024, see,
e.g., Appellant’s Br. 7, the operative complaint and Court
of Federal Claims opinion address claims relating to tax
years 2021 through 2023. Appx. 31; Complaint at 2–3.
Case: 26-1215 Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 06/26/2026

-- 2 of 5 --

PELLEGRINO v. US 3
The government moved to dismiss, arguing Mr. Pelle-
grino’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted under Rule 12(b)(6)4 and that he could not
represent the estate pro se under Rule 83.1. Appx. 30. The
Court of Federal Claims granted the motion, finding the
complaint pleaded insufficient information to discern
whether overpayment occurred. Appx. 33. The court con-
cluded it lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Pellegrino’s allega-
tions concerning IRS administrative misconduct and that
Rule 83.1 prohibited him, as a non-attorney, from repre-
senting the estate in court. Appx. 33–34. Mr. Pellegrino
appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
We review de novo a Court of Federal Claims dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Steffen v. United States, 995 F.3d
1377, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citing Welty v. United States,
926 F.3d 1319, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Dismissal is appro-
priate when the claimant’s well-pleaded factual allega-
tions, taken as true, do not entitle the claimant to a legal
remedy. Lindsay v. United States, 295 F.3d 1252, 1257
(Fed. Cir. 2002). To survive dismissal, a complaint bring-
ing a refund claim must plausibly allege the claimant paid
taxes exceeding the amount lawfully owed. See Lewis v.
Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 283, modified, 284 U.S. 599 (1932)
(“The action to recover on a claim for refund is . . . an action
for money had and received and it is incumbent upon the
claimant to show that the United States has money which
belongs to him.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
4 “Rule” refers to the Rules of the United States
Court of Federal Claims.
Case: 26-1215 Document: 32 Page: 3 Filed: 06/26/2026

-- 3 of 5 --

PELLEGRINO v. US 4
On appeal, Mr. Pellegrino argues the Court of Federal
Claims erred in dismissing his complaint because (1) he ad-
equately established authority to represent the estate;
(2) he plausibly alleged a refund claim within the court’s
jurisdiction under the Tucker Act; and (3) the court vio-
lated due process by dismissing his complaint without re-
viewing the evidence. We do not agree.
First, the Court of Federal Claims correctly held
Mr. Pellegrino could not represent the estate pro se.
Appx. 34. Mr. Pellegrino contends his fiduciary filings,
IRS-issued credentials, and power of attorney conferred
authority to litigate the refund claim. Appellant’s
Br. 15–17. But he conceded before the court that he brings
the refund claim on behalf of an entity (the estate) rather
than himself. Appx. 34. As the court observed, Rule 83.1
precludes non-attorneys from representing an entity before
the court. Id. (citing Rule 83.1(a)(4)).
Second, the Court of Federal Claims correctly held it
lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Pellegrino’s allegations of IRS
administrative misconduct and that his complaint did not
state a plausible refund claim. Mr. Pellegrino argues the
court erroneously dismissed his complaint for lack of juris-
diction because the Tucker Act grants the court jurisdiction
over refund claims. Appellant’s Br. 17–18 (citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491). But the court did not hold that refund claims fall
outside its jurisdiction. See Appx. 33–34. Rather, it held
that to the extent Mr. Pellegrino challenges the IRS’s al-
leged mishandling of returns or processing delays, those al-
legations are unreviewable because they sound in tort. Id.
(citing Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States,
521 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). On the refund mer-
its, the court held Mr. Pellegrino failed to state a claim be-
cause his complaint “provide[d] [no] information about
what the estate is, how it earned income, or how it overpaid
its taxes.” Appx. 33. Mr. Pellegrino does not substantively
address the court’s reasoning as to either holding on ap-
peal.
Case: 26-1215 Document: 32 Page: 4 Filed: 06/26/2026

-- 4 of 5 --

PELLEGRINO v. US 5
Third, the Court of Federal Claims dismissal did not
violate due process. Mr. Pellegrino asserts the court did so
by failing to review the evidence, including his fiduciary fil-
ings, IRS-issued credentials, and power of attorney. Appel-
lant’s Br. 18–20. No document identified by Mr. Pellegrino
compels a different outcome. See id. at 19. Even assuming
those documents conferred executor status, they would not
cure his complaint’s failure to plausibly allege a refund
claim or bring his allegations concerning IRS administra-
tive conduct within the court’s jurisdiction.
Mr. Pellegrino raises additional arguments on appeal,
for example, that (1) the IRS violated 26 U.S.C. § 6402 by
failing to release overpayments, Appellant’s Br. 20–21;
(2) the IRS violated 26 U.S.C. § 6103(e)(6) by obstructing
executor access to the estate’s tax account, Appellant’s
Br. 21–22; (3) this court should exercise equitable power to
correct the Court of Federal Claims’ errors, id. at 22–24;
and (4) the Department of Justice lacks standing to move
for dismissal without proof of authority delegated by the
IRS Commissioner, id. at 24. Because we see no error in
the Court of Federal Claims dismissal, we do not reach
these arguments.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Pellegrino’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we af-
firm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 26-1215 Document: 32 Page: 5 Filed: 06/26/2026

-- 5 of 5 --