Whether claimed pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (a) (1) United States Constitutional Article II, Section 2, Amendment J, due-process, takings, 26-usc-6402

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | | Whether claimed pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (a) (1) United States | | Constitutional Article II, Section 2, Amendment J, due process of law Takings, without just compensation clauses, and 26 U.S.C. § 6402 (a) statutes’ injury violations of unpaid and misdirected taxcredit benefits, by the United States Internal Revenue Service Department in the overpayment amount of $9,077.26 U.S.D conflicts adverse conformity opposition to United States Court of Federal Claims invoked litigation injury claims; asserted as redress barred by Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's dissention erring improper conveyed application to 26 U.S.C. §$ 6402 (g) non-jurisdictional command to prohibit | review or restraint of reductions without the court of first instance analogy determination of statutory jurisdiction for plausible congressional expressed modes of damage recovery. | 2. On the ancillary presented question, whether pursuant 26 U.S.C. $ 6402 (g) command to prohibit review or restraint of reductions provisionary implied interpretation; thereby the federal circuit Page ii court of appeals case assigned panel's de novo dissention under APPX. A, at 3-4; ECF. DOC., No., 28, at 3-4; 22-1712, "Williams v. U.S.," conflicts adversely to Supreme Court precedent's dissention under title case proceedings; "United States v Mitchell,” 463, U.S. 206, at 218-21, (1983); holding that actionable claims doesn't requires any additional waiver in support for determining injury claims arising under the Tucker Act, adjacent thereto the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's presiding precedents’ decision disposition dissent under case titled; "Sanford Health Plan v. United States,” 969 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2020). 3. Finally, whether pursuant 26 U.S.C. $ 6402 (g) command to prohibit review of reductions provisionary implied interpretation; thereby the federal circuit court of appeals case assigned panel's de novo dissention under APPX. A, at 3-4; ECF. DOC., No., 28, at 3-4; 22-1712; "Williams v. U.S.," conflicts adversely to 26 U.S.C. § 6402 (n) express mode for misdirected monetary Overpayments recovery, as arising therefrom erroneous Page iii application pursuant 26 U.S.C. § 6402 (c) omitted the required statute's conforming adjudicated legal basis jurisdiction decree. | | Page iv