Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3d 403
72 A.F.T.R.2d 93-6395
Steven A. Nisbet, Tamra Phipps, Asst. U.S. Attys., Tampa, FL, Gary R.
Allen, Randolph L. Hutter, Ann B. Durney, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Tax
Div., Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.
Before HATCHETT and COX, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, Senior
Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the trial court's dismissal of appellant's suit for damages
filed against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
For the reasons set forth in the district court's opinion, which is attached as an
appendix, we affirm its dismissal of the suit.
APPENDIX
6
The Anti-Injunction Act, embodied in section 7421 of the tax code, generally
bars suits of this nature. That provision provides in relevant part:
7
Except
as provided in sections 6212(a) and (c), 6213(a), ... no suit for the purpose of
restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court
by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was
assessed.
8
26 U.S.C. Sec. 7421(a). This Act, therefore, prohibits injunctions in the context
of a statutory scheme which provides an alternative remedy. South Carolina v.
Regan, 465 U.S. 367, 374, 104 S.Ct. 1107, 1112, 79 L.Ed.2d 372 (1984). A
taxpayer's normal recourse is to pay the disputed tax, and then file suit for a
refund. Bilbo v. United States, 633 F.2d 1137, 1140 (5th Cir. Unit B, Jan.
1981). As the plaintiff has filed to follow this course, the Court lacks
jurisdiction to entertain his suit.
10