Anti-Injunction Act (26 U.S.C. § 7421(A))

102 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• E. Ky. Welf. Rights Org. v. Simon
  506 F.2d 1278· D.C. Cir.· 1974-10-09 ·cited 48×
  Revenue Ruling 69-545 was invalid because it was issued without compliance with the informal rulemaking procedures required by Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act.
• United States v. Zolin
  809 F.2d 1411· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-09 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the district court did not err in compelling production of some documents, denying production of others, finding the summons was issued in good faith, and restricting IRS disclosure. The court also affirmed the waiver of privilege for certain documents and the
• Louie N. Elias v. W.H. Connett
  908 F.2d 521· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred injunctive relief for tax years 1974-1979 due to proper notice, and for 1981-1982 due to lack of sufficient grounds for equitable relief. The court also held that the plaintiff failed to state a quiet title action under 28 U.S.C.
• Gattuso v. Pecorella
  733 F.2d 709· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-22 ·cited 34×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the taxpayers' challenge to tax assessments and that their claim that wages are not income is frivolous.
• Aqua BAR & Lounge, Inc. v. United States Dep't OF Treas. Internal Revenue Serv. & Joseph B. Saltz
  539 F.2d 935· 3d Cir.· 1976-07-07 ·cited 32×
  A taxpayer whose property has been seized and sold for non-payment of federal taxes may bring suit against the United States to quiet title, provided the taxpayer refrains from contesting the merits of the underlying tax assessment.
• Brittingham v. United States Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  451 F.2d 315· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-04 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the application for a writ of mandatory relief because it lacked jurisdiction and the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• In re Bostwick v. United States
  521 F.2d 741· 8th Cir.· 1975-08-01 ·cited 31×
  The bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to determine the dischargeability of tax debts and to enjoin the collection of those taxes, even if the United States has not filed a proof of claim, as the Bankruptcy Act overrides general statutes like the anti-injunction act and the Declar
• Bright v. Bechtel Petroleum, Inc.
  780 F.2d 766· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the employer's removal of the employee's breach of contract claim was proper because the claim, despite being artfully pleaded, actually arose under federal tax law. The court affirmed the dismissal of both federal and state tax withholding claims and the awar
• Black v. United States
  534 F.2d 524· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-23 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred injunctive relief and that the complaint failed to state a claim for damages due to lack of specificity regarding personal responsibility of officials.
• "Americans United" Inc. v. Walters
  477 F.2d 1169· D.C. Cir.· 1973-01-11 ·cited 28×
  The court did not decide the merits of the case, only that constitutional issues warranted a three-judge court.
• Marvel v. United States
  719 F.2d 1507· 10th Cir.· 1983-10-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that referring a civil case to a magistrate for trial with the parties' consent is statutorily and constitutionally permissible, and that tax notices addressed to a trade name are valid if the taxpayer receives actual notice.
• Lonsdale v. United States & Does 1 through 100
  919 F.2d 1440· 10th Cir.· 1990-11-20 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act bars suits seeking to restrain tax collection, and that the taxpayers' arguments regarding publication requirements and the validity of IRS authority were meritless.
• ST. Louis Union Tr. Co. v. United States
  617 F.2d 1293· 8th Cir.· 1980-03-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Escrow Agreement was unambiguous, precluding parol evidence, and that Stone possessed sufficient 'property or rights to property' in the escrowed income to be subject to IRS tax levies.
• Linn v. Chivatero
  714 F.2d 1278· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction, and that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the taxpayer's claim under the Enochs exception.
• Junior Chamber OF Commerce OF Rochester, Inc. v. The United States Jaycees
  495 F.2d 883· 10th Cir.· 1974-04-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the United States Jaycees' discriminatory membership policies, despite receiving federal funds and tax exemptions, do not constitute state or federal action sufficient to violate constitutional rights or civil rights statutes.
• Lloyd v. Patterson
  242 F.2d 742· 5th Cir.· 1957-04-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the taxpayer's claimed financial hardship did not constitute extraordinary circumstances to overcome the statutory prohibition against enjoining tax collection.
• Lewis v. Sandler
  498 F.2d 395· 4th Cir.· 1974-06-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act, the tax exception to the Declaratory Judgment Act, and the failure to file an administrative claim for refund barred the action.
• Pietsch v. The President of the United States
  434 F.2d 861· 2d Cir.· 1970-11-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the taxpayer's suit to restrain tax collection was barred by statute, and his contempt conviction was reversed due to procedural defects in the contempt order.
• Ersa, Inc. v. Dudley
  234 F.2d 178· 3d Cir.· 1956-05-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that federal tax liens attached to personal property before the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's lien became choate, making the federal liens prior.
• McCARTY v. United States
  929 F.2d 1085· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-30 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a taxpayer can use 28 U.S.C. § 2410 to challenge the procedural validity of a federal tax lien, but not the merits of the underlying tax assessment. The court also affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the government.
• Pasquale Laino and Minerva Laino v. United States
  633 F.2d 626· 2d Cir.· 1980-10-06 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act bars a suit to restrain tax collection when the taxpayer has failed to petition the Tax Court for redetermination of a deficiency and has not demonstrated that the government could not prevail on the merits.
• Zernial v. United States
  714 F.2d 431· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the plaintiff's claims, primarily due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Anti-Injunction Act and for failure to state a claim on frivolous grounds.
• Inv. Annuity, Inc. v. W. Michael Blumenthal as Secretary of the Treasury of the United States
  609 F.2d 1· D.C. Cir.· 1979-10-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act and the tax exception to the Declaratory Judgment Act bar the district court's relief, as the suit's purpose was to restrain tax collection.
• Licavoli v. Nixon
  312 F.2d 200· 6th Cir.· 1963-01-18 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the taxpayers' suit to enjoin the collection of taxes was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, as the Government's claim was not so clearly without merit as to fall within the narrow exception for equitable jurisdiction.
• Robinson v. United States
  920 F.2d 1157· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a suit under 28 U.S.C. § 2410(a) to quiet title against an IRS lien is permissible when the IRS's procedural error, such as failing to send a notice of deficiency, blocks the taxpayer's access to the Tax Court, even if the underlying tax liability is not dispu
• Koch v. Alexander
  561 F.2d 1115· 4th Cir.· 1977-08-16 ·cited 14×
  The filing of an amended tax return showing zero liability does not render the originally assessed tax a 'deficiency' for purposes of enjoining collection under the Anti-Injunction Act.
• Flynn v. United States
  786 F.2d 586· 3d Cir.· 1986-03-19 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court erred by refusing to admit parol evidence regarding the taxpayer's waiver of notice of deficiency and that the taxpayer may be entitled to injunctive relief under 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a) if a waiver is not established and equitable grounds exist
• United States v. Mellon Bank
  521 F.2d 708· 3d Cir.· 1975-08-28 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act does not divest the district court of jurisdiction over counterclaims when the court has jurisdiction over an enforcement petition filed by the United States under 26 U.S.C. § 7402.
• Cattle Feeders TAX Comm. v. Hon. George Shultz
  504 F.2d 462· 10th Cir.· 1974-10-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act bars this suit because the government can ultimately prevail and there is no basis for equity jurisdiction.
• Giles E. Bullock and Katherine D. Bullock v. Latham
  306 F.2d 45· 2d Cir.· 1962-07-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear cases where a non-taxpayer's property is seized to satisfy another's tax liability, even when the Declaratory Judgment Act and anti-injunction statutes might otherwise apply.
• Hughes v. United States
  953 F.2d 531· 9th Cir.· 1992-01-09 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed claims for injunctive and declaratory relief due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Anti-Injunction Act and Declaratory Judgment Act, and properly granted summary judgment on damages claims.
• Singleton v. Mathis
  284 F.2d 616· 8th Cir.· 1960-12-27 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the actions could not be maintained because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances required to overcome the statutory prohibition against enjoining tax collection.
• Lowrie v. United States
  824 F.2d 827· 10th Cir.· 1987-07-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred the suit against the IRS for return of records when the purpose was to avoid tax liability, and reversed the judgment against the FBI as they no longer possessed the records.
• Cardwell v. Kurtz
  765 F.2d 776· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the fraud, deceit, and trickery claim because disputed facts regarding IRS agent misrepresentations required a trial, and that the government's position was not substantially justified, entitling plainti
• Hansen v. United States
  744 F.2d 658· 8th Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Anti-Injunction Act, as the appellants failed to meet the criteria for a judicial exception.
• Edgar v. Inland Steel Co.
  744 F.2d 1276· 7th Cir.· 1984-09-21 ·cited 10×
  Employees cannot sue their employer for withholding federal income taxes, nor can they recover under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions taken under federal law.
• Perlowin v. Sassi
  711 F.2d 910· 9th Cir.· 1983-07-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the termination assessment was invalid due to the IRS's failure to issue a timely notice of deficiency, injunctive relief was not automatically granted and required a showing of irreparable harm and lack of adequate legal remedy.
• Armantrout v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  570 F.2d 210· 7th Cir.· 1978-02-10 ·cited 10×
  Parents are taxable on educational benefits provided to their children through an employer-sponsored plan, as these benefits constitute compensation for services rendered by the parents.
• Laing v. United States
  496 F.2d 853· 2d Cir.· 1974-05-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint seeking an injunction and declaratory judgment regarding federal tax assessment and levy.
• United States v. Meyer
  50 F.4th 23· 11th Cir.· 2022-09-26 ·cited 9×
  The Anti-Injunction Act does not bar a defendant from moving for a protective order in an action initiated by the government, as such a motion does not constitute a 'suit' for the purpose of restraining tax assessment or collection.
• Wiemerslage v. Grieco
  838 F.2d 899· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-20 ·cited 8×
  The Internal Revenue Code's antidisclosure provision, 26 U.S.C. § 6103(n), permits the IRS to contract out tax return processing functions to private entities when necessary for tax administration.
• Sorenson v. The Sec'y OF the Treas. OF the United States
  752 F.2d 1433· 9th Cir.· 1985-02-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the tax intercept program, as amended by OBRA, applies to earned income credits and that the Secretary's actions were not barred by sovereign immunity or jurisdictional statutes. The court affirmed the district court's decision regarding earned income credits.
• Stites v. United States Gov't
  746 F.2d 1085· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred the suit and that the taxpayers' claims were frivolous, warranting double costs on appeal.
• Maxfield v. United States Postal Serv.
  752 F.2d 433· 9th Cir.· 1984-10-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred the taxpayer's suit against his employer for wrongful tax withholding, and the employer is immune from liability for following IRS directives.
• Souther v. G.L. Mihlbachler
  701 F.2d 131· 10th Cir.· 1983-03-02 ·cited 8×
  Federal district courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin the collection of taxes or penalties, and the petitioner failed to meet the stringent requirements for an exception.
• Smith v. Cora Rich and Commissioner of Internal Revenue
  667 F.2d 1228· 5th Cir.· 1982-02-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act bars suits seeking to restrain the assessment or collection of taxes, and the plaintiffs' claims did not fall within any statutory exceptions.
• Morgan L. McCABE v. Alexander
  526 F.2d 963· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act and Declaratory Judgment Act bar suits seeking to restrain the assessment or collection of federal taxes, and the plaintiff failed to meet the exception requiring the government to be unable to prevail on the merits.
• Lucia v. United States
  447 F.2d 912· 5th Cir.· 1971-08-23 ·cited 8×
• Enters. Unlimited, Inc. v. Dalmon Davis
  340 F.2d 472· 9th Cir.· 1965-01-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred the suit because the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that the United States could not establish its claim or that an adequate remedy at law was unavailable.
• Botta v. Scanlon
  288 F.2d 504· 2d Cir.· 1961-03-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that individuals not specified in the taxing statutes as liable for a tax, especially a penalty for willful acts, should have an opportunity for judicial review before their property is seized.