HAROLD A. HOBSON, JR., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
ROY S. FISCHBECK, I.R.S. DISTRICT COUNSEL, KENNETH W. GIDEON, I.R.S. CHIEF COUNSEL, AND DONALD T. REGAN, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, 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 federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin tax collection and that the defendants are immune from damages.
Plaintiff sued IRS employees for investigating his tax deficiencies and failure to file. After dismissal and amendment, the district court again dismi…
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 In Personam Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Harold A. Hobson, Jr., an apparent tax protester, brought this suit in the district court against appellees, two employees of the Internal Revenue Service charged with the determination and collection of federal income taxes, seeking damages against them for investigating his income tax deficiencies, and his failure to file tax returns, for the years 1977 through 1980. Hobson also sought the declaration of various taxpayer rights. The district court, after receiving oral argument from the parties, dismissed Hobson’s complaint, with leave to amend, for want of both subject matter and in personam jurisdiction. In granting Hobson leave to amend, the court admonished him to think “long and hard before [filing] an [amended complaint] and embroilpng] the Court and the Government lawyers in a litigation that doesn’t have a legal foundation.”
Hobson subsequently amended his original complaint, adding the Secretary of Treasury as a party defendant, alleging that the defendants’ conduct, in investigating his failure to file income tax returns and to pay income taxes, had deprived him of his constitutional rights and seeking, among other equitable relief, an injunction expunging the words “tax protester” from all government records. The government moved the court to dismiss Hobson’s complaint, as amended, for want of both subject matter and in personam jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim for relief. The court dismissed the complaint, concluding that, in light of the proscriptions of 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (1982) and 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) (1982), it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant the equitable relief Hobson sought. The court also concluded that, to the extent Hobson’s complaint could be construed to seek the recovery of money damages, Hobson could not recover because the defendants were immune from such liability under the holding of Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 1347, 3 L.Ed.2d 1434 (1959). Hobson appeals.
Plainly stated, what Hobson’s complaint sought from the district court was an order enjoining the IRS from investigating and perhaps prosecuting him for federal income tax evasion. Federal courts are expressly proscribed, by statute, from entertaining suits to “[restrain] the assessment or collection of any tax” except under specific circumstances not applicable here. The Supreme Court has held that no injunction will issue unless the plaintiff can show that under no circumstances could the government ultimately prevail and there exists an independent basis for equity jurisdiction. Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 7, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 1129, 8 L.Ed.2d 292 (1962); Bob Jones University v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 745, 94 S.Ct. 2038, 2050, 40 L.Ed.2d 496 (1974). Hobson’s complaint satisfies neither prong of the Enochs test. First, Hob-son could not prevail because his claim that he is not subject to the federal income tax laws is patently meritless. See Simanonok v. Commissioner, 731 F. 2d 743, 744 (11th Cir.1984). Second, equitable relief is not available because Hobson has an adequate remedy at law — he could pay the disputed tax and then sue for a refund.
The IRS urges us to impose sanctions in the form of extraordinary costs and attorneys’ fees against Hobson for filing a frivolous appeal. We have held that, where an appeal is patently frivolous, the court may assess damages to the appellee, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and double costs. See Collins v. Amoco Production Co., 706 F. 2d 1114, 1115 (11th Cir.1983); see also Parker v. Commissioner, 724 F. 2d 469, 472 (5th Cir.1984); Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F. 2d 71, 72 (5th Cir.1981) (warning litigants that the continued advancing of long-defunct arguments invites sanctions).
The arguments Hobson has presented in this appeal are without even arguable merit. They are foreclosed by statute and by case law. The district court fully cautioned him about the limitations of its jurisdiction at the hearing on the government’s motion to dismiss his original complaint. He should have anticipated the district court’s dismissal of his amended complaint and our summary rejection of his appeal. In short, he chose to vex the government with this litigation. Under the circumstances, economic sanctions are in order, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and double costs. We direct the district court, on receipt of the mandate, to determine, after a hearing, the amount thereof.
AFFIRMED, with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698 (11th Cir. 1988)…cedure. The Service’s position is that Roberts has brought this appeal “solely to delay incarceration under the District Court’s contempt order.” We have held that sanctions are justified where an appeal is “patently frivolous.” Hobson v. Fischbeck, 758 F. 2d 579, 581 (11th Cir.), reh’g denied, 763 F. 2d 419 (11th Cir.1985). However, Roberts’ arguments, while unpersuasive, are not “without even arguable merit.” Cf. id. Because Roberts’ appeal is not affirmatively vexatious, we decline to impose economic sanc…
-
Samak v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium, 766 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2014)…chances of success. Bolin v. Story, 225 F. 3d 1234, 1242-43 (11th Cir.2000); Weaver v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 172 F. 3d 771, 773 (11th Cir.1999); United Steelworkers of Am. v. USX Corp., 966 F. 2d 1394, 1404-05 (11th Cir.1992); Hobson v. Fischbeck, 758 F. 2d 579, 581 (11th Cir.1985). Similarly, writs of mandamus are unavailable “where there is another means to obtain adequate review,” In re Bethesda Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 123 F. 3d 1407, 1408 (11th Cir.1997) (emphasis added), but the adequacy of an appeal, in…
-
Hempel v. United States, 14 F.3d 572 (11th Cir. 1994)…3d Cir.1991). . Once a proper assessment has been made, the taxpayer’s recourse is to pay the tax and bring a suit for refund. See, e.g., Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 736, 94 S.Ct. 2038, 2047, 40 L.Ed.2d 496 (1974); Hobson v. Fischbeck, 758 F. 2d 579, 581 (11th Cir.1985). . "Normally, the Internal Revenue Service may not 'assess' a tax or collect it ... until the taxpayer has had an opportunity to exhaust his administrative remedies, which include an opportunity to litigate his tax liability ful…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1959)
- Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., Inc., 370 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1962)
- Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1974)
- Lonsdale v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 661 F.2d 71 (5th Cir. 1981)
- Alton M. Parker, Sr. v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 724 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1984)
- Simanonok v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 731 F.2d 743 (11th Cir. 1984)
- Collins v. Amoco Prod. Co., 706 F.2d 1114 (11th Cir. 1983)