PATRICK L. BARR, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, E. THOMPSON, REVENUE OFFICER, AND INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff's suit to enjoin collection of a tax penalty was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act and did not meet the exception criteria.
Plaintiff filed a false W-4, was assessed a penalty, and sued to enjoin its collection. The district court dismissed the suit as barred by the Anti-In…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 26 U.S.C. § 7421(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Pro-se plaintiff-appellant Patrick Barr appeals from the judgment of the district court dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
Barr filed a withholding statement (Form W-4) with his employer claiming that he was exempt from withholding. The government subsequently determined that Barr’s representations were false, and assessed a $500 penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6682. .Barr then filed a “Petition to Enforce Administrative Procedure” which the district court interpreted as a request to enjoin collection of the assessed penalty. As such, the suit was dismissed as barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421, which provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained ____” Section 6671 provides that the penalty at issue here is a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.
A narrow exception to the scope of the Anti-Injunction Act was created by the Supreme Court in Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 8 L.Ed.2d 292 (1962). A taxpayer may succeed in enjoining collection of a tax if he can show that 1) under the most liberal view of the facts and the law, the United States could not establish its claim, and 2) the taxpayer has no adequate remedy at law. Here, Mr. Barr does not address the merits of the penalty assessment let alone show that the government is unlikely to prevail. Although the case could be dismissed on this basis alone, we also note that the taxpayer has an adequate remedy at law. The legality of the assessment can readily be challenged via a suit for a refund in federal district court or the Court of Claims.1
The judgment of the district court is accordingly
Affirmed.
. To sue for a refund, taxpayer must, of course, have paid the tax — or had it seized or garnished. There is no indication in the record that the penalty had been collected, although appellant states in his brief that the IRS served a “Notice of Levy on Wages and Salary” on him. If the penalty had been collected, a suit to enjoin its collection would be moot as well as barred by the Anti-Injunction Act.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Florida Ex Rel. McCollum v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 716 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Fla. 2010)…1357, 1362 n. 5 (11th Cir.2003). The defendants have cited two out-of-circuit cases in support of their contention that Section 6671(a) requires penalties to be treated the same as taxes for Anti-Injunction Act purposes, Barr v. United States, 736 F.2d 1134 (7th Cir.1984); Warren v. United States, 874 F.2d 280 (5th Cir.1989). Although those cases did indeed hold that the penalties at issue fell under the Anti-Injunction Act, they do not really support the defendants’ position. As the plaintiffs n…
Authorities Cited
- Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., Inc., 370 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1962)