DECISION AND ORDERI. INTRODUCTION In this action, pro se plaintiff Deborah Ann Buczek alleges that the Internal Revenue Service unlawfully levied her assets to collect income taxes. Defendant United States of America (“the government”) moved to dismiss Buczek’s amended complaint under Rules 12 (b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Docket No. 8.) With briefing fully completed and oral argument deemed unnecessary, this Court will grant the government’s motion and dismiss the amended complaint.II. BACKGROUNDA. Procedural HistoryBuczek initiated this action on March 30, 2015, when she filed a 5-inch-thick complaint against a host of defendants, including the IRS, an IRS agent, a local Congressman, an accountant, a bank, and a law firm, all of whom she alleged participated in the unlawful levying of her assets. (Docket No. 1.) Upon screening under 28 U.S.C. §1915 (e)(2)(B), this Court recognized Buczek’s claim as falling under 26 U.S.C. §7433, which authorizes an action against only the government. See 26 U.S.C. §7433 (providing that a taxpayer may bring a civil action for damages related to the collection of tax “against the United States”). This Court therefore dismissed all named defendants and directed Buczek to file an amended complaint naming the government as the defendant. (Docket No. 4.)In compliance with this Court’s directive, Buczek filed an amended complaint on September 25, 2015 (Docket No. 5), and a supplement to that complaint on October 13, 2015 (Docket No. 6), which in combination this Court has recognized as the operative amended complaint (Docket No. 7).1 This Court directed service of the amended complaint by the United States Marshals Service on February 27, 2017. (Docket No. 7.) On May 12, 2017, the government moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Docket No. 8.) Briefing on that motion concluded on July 24, 2017. (Docket No. 14.)B. FactsThe following facts, drawn from Buczek’s amended complaint, are assumed true for purposes of assessing the government’s motion to dismiss. See Crupar-Weinmann v. Paris Baguette Am., Inc., 861 F.3d 76, 79 (2d Cir. 2017); ATSI Commc’ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007).Buczek alleges that IRS agent Gil Reyes placed unauthorized levies on her social security benefits. (Amended Complaint, 1.) She maintains that Reyes has been “taking” her $914 monthly benefit since April of 2014. (Id. at
2, 6.) She further alleges that the IRS twice took money from her bank account in March 2014 and April of 2015, totaling $946. (Id. at 2.) These levies, she claims, are unlawful because they exceed 15 percent of her monthly benefits. (Id.) Buczek alleges that Reyes improperly continued to levy her benefits even though she requested collection due process hearings under 26 U.S.C. §6330 for tax years 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, which she claims should have stopped his collection efforts. (Id. at
