COMPLAINT FOR TAXES ON SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS PAID TO CANADA DISMISSED.

     NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not

I.

[2] Mr. West is a retired U.S. citizen, living in Canada and receiving Social Security benefits. Mr. West alleges: "[t]here exists an express contract between [Mr. West] (or any other U.S. taxpayer) and the [Government] which computes the taxable amount of social security benefits received by the taxpayer." Mr. West further alleges that the Government breached this contract when the Government entered into "a fourth protocol" -- a treaty between the Government and Canada. According to Mr. West, the fourth protocol changes the taxable status of Social Security benefits received by United States citizens residing in Canada in two ways: (1) it increases the percentage of the benefits that are taxable, and (2) it allows Canada, rather than the United States, to tax the benefits.

[3] Mr. West brought his complaint in the Court of Federal Claims. The Government moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, alleging that no valid contract exists between Mr. West and the Government. The court granted the Government's motion without opinion.

II.

[4] This court reviews without deference dismissals by the Court of Federal Claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. First Hartford Corp. Pension Plan & Trust v. United States, 194 F.3d 1279, 1286-87 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A complaint can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it is "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-56 (1957); Southfork Sys., Inc. v. United States, 141 F.3d 1124, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In making this determination, the court "must accept the plaintiff's factual allegations in the complaint as true, drawing all inferences in favor of the plaintiff." Ponder v. United States, 117 F.3d 549, 552-53 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

[5] Mr. West argues that he has equity rights in the Social Security system, and that the statutes that define his collection of Social Security benefits are part of a contractual relationship between himself and the Government. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated: "Tax legislation is not a promise, and a taxpayer has no vested right in the Internal Revenue Code." United States v. Carlton, 512 U.S. 26, 33 (1994). A citizen's interest in the Social Security system also is not a contractual or equitable right. The Supreme Court has stated that Social Security benefits are "noncontractual." Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 610 (1960). The Court has further stated, "To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to everchanging conditions which it demands." Id. Accordingly, the Internal Revenue Code does not bestow contractual rights on taxpayers, and potential beneficiaries of the Social Security system do not have equitable or contractual rights in that system. Mr. West thus cannot prove the existence of a valid contract between himself and the Government.

[6] Because Mr. West cannot prove any set of facts that would entitle him to relief on his breach of contract claim, this court affirms.