ROBERT F. BLANGERES, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
BURLINGTON NORTHERN, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION; MONTANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, DEFENDANTS-INTERVENORS-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 Tax Injunction Act deprives federal courts of jurisdiction to enjoin state tax assessments, even indirectly, and that 49 U.S.C. § 11504 does not create an exception.
Employees of Burlington Northern sought to enjoin the company from disclosing their earnings and tax information to Idaho and Montana taxing authoriti…
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 Tax Injunction Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Robert F. Blangeres and other employees of Burlington Northern appeal the district court’s dismissal of their action. They also appeal the district court’s order granting permissive intervention to the Idaho and Montana taxing authorities. We affirm.
The employees sought an order enjoining Burlington Northern from disclosing earnings records and other tax-related information to the Idaho and Montana taxing authorities. The district court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We review de novo a district court’s decision regarding subject matter jurisdiction. See Peter Starr Production Co. v. Twin Continental Films, Inc., 788 F. 2d 1440, 1442 (9th Cir.1986).
The district court properly found that the Tax Injunction Act deprives it of jurisdiction to grant the injunction sought. The Tax Injunction Act provides: “The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1341. The requested injunction would preclude Idaho and Montana from taxing Burlington Northern employees because the states would be unable to obtain the information necessary for assessment. The injunction would thus “restrain assessment” of state taxes. The fact that the injunction would restrain assessment indirectly rather than directly does not make the Tax Injunction Act inapplicable. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals came to the same conclusion in a similar case. See Sipe v. Amerada Hess Corp., 689 F. 2d 396, 404 (3d Cir.1982) (rejecting an argument that the Tax Injunction Act does not apply to an action between two private parties).
The employees contend that 49 U.S. C. § 11504 permits injunctions notwithstanding the Tax Injunction Act. 49 U.S.C. § 11504(a)(2) sets forth circumstances in which a rail carrier is required to withhold from employee wages pursuant to state law. The statute does not expressly provide an exception to the Tax Injunction Act. We will not carve out exceptions to the Tax Injunction Act unless Congress clearly expresses an intent to create an exception. See Ashton v. Cory, 780 F. 2d 816, 822 (9th Cir.1982); cf. 49 U.S.C. 11503(c).
Because we affirm dismissal, we need not decide whether the district court properly granted permissive intervention.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ashton v. Cory, 780 F.2d 816 (9th Cir. 1986)
- Sipe v. Amerada Hess Corp., 689 F.2d 396 (3d Cir. 1982)
- Fed. Land Bank OF Wichita v. The Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF the Cnty. OF Adams, 788 F.2d 1440 (10th Cir. 1986)