TRENTON, N.J. — A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by New Jersey resident Joshua Allen Ranta seeking a $2.3 billion tax refund from the Internal Revenue Service, finding that he cannot represent a trust in federal court without legal counsel.
In a letter opinion issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals granted the federal government’s motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, allowing Ranta an opportunity to continue the lawsuit only if a licensed attorney enters an appearance and files an amended complaint within 60 days.
Court says trusts must be represented by attorneys
According to the opinion, Ranta filed the lawsuit as trustee of the JAR Revocable Living Trust after the IRS declined to issue the requested $2.3 billion refund. The United States argued the case should be dismissed for several reasons, including that Ranta, who is not an attorney, could not represent the trust.
Judge Neals agreed, writing that federal law permits individuals to represent themselves but not artificial entities such as trusts.
The opinion cites longstanding precedent that “a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel” and notes that the rule “applies equally to all artificial entities.”
The judge also rejected Ranta’s argument that he was appearing only as the trust’s fiduciary.
“Plaintiff brought this lawsuit in his capacity as trustee. He may not do so without counsel,” Neals wrote.
Case dismissed without prejudice
Because the representation issue was dispositive, the court did not address the government’s remaining arguments, which included claims that the court lacked jurisdiction, that Ranta failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the refund claim was frivolous.
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, giving Ranta 60 days to obtain an attorney admitted to practice before the District of New Jersey and file an amended complaint.
Judge Neals warned that if Ranta does not secure counsel and file an amended pleading within that period, the court may dismiss the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The court also denied Ranta’s request to file a sur-reply, finding that the government’s reply brief did not raise any new arguments requiring an additional response.
