|
View Case
|
|
Cited Cases
|
|
Citing Cases
|
|
Comment (0)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BOARDMAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
United States District Court, E.D. California.
December 6, 2012.
If the motion constitutes a facial attack, the Court must consider the factual allegations of the complaint to be true. Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 412 (5th Cir. 1981); Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891. If the motion constitutes a factual attack, however, "no presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiff's allegations, and the existence of disputed material facts will not preclude the trial court from evaluating for itself the merits of jurisdictional claims." Thornhill, 594 F.2d at 733 (quoting Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891). If the Court grants a motion to dismiss a complaint, it must then decide whether to grant leave to amend. Generally, leave to amend should be denied only if it is clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. Broughton v. Cutter Labs, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980). ANALYSISThe Anti-Injunction Act ("the Act") establishes that "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." 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). "The Court has interpreted the principal purpose of [the Act] to be the protection of the Government's need to assess and collect taxes as expeditiously as possible with a minimum of pre-enforcement judicial interference." Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 736 (1974). As such, the Act applies to all cases impacting tax collection, even if the complaint alleges constitutional violations. Alexander v. Ams. United Inc., 616 U.S. 752, 759 (1974). Furthermore, courts have relied on the Act when the complaint seeks injunctive relief. Uptergrove v. United States, 2009 WL 2244185, *2 (E.D. Cal. July 27, 2009). Courts tend to broadly and strictly enforce the Act. Maxfield v. U.S. Postal Serv., 752 F.2d 433, 434 (9th Cir. 1984). If the Act applies to a particular lawsuit, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the claim or grant relief. Life Science Church v. IRS, 525 F.Supp. 399, 404 (N.D. Cal. 1981). However, the Act "sets forth [a two-prong exception] which, if present, will support the granting of equitable relief." Church of Scientology of California v. United States, 920 F.2d 1481, 1484 (9th cir. 1990). "[A]n injunction may be obtained against the collection of any tax if [the plaintiff establishes that] (1) it is `clear that under no circumstances could the government ultimately prevail' and (2) `equity jurisdiction' otherwise exists, i.e., the taxpayer shows that he would otherwise suffer irreparable injury." Id. at 1485 (internal citations omitted). A. Whether the Act Applies
1. All further references to "Rule" or "Rules" are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.
2. Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefing. E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).
3. The factual assertions in this section are based on the allegations in Plaintiff's complaint unless otherwise specified. (ECF No. 1.)
4. Plaintiff put forth several additional arguments as to why the Act should not bar the Court's jurisdiction over this case. After examining Plaintiff's theories, the Court finds them unpersuasive.
5. There appears to be some confusion over Defendant's use of the word "frivolous." Plaintiff mistakenly believes that Defendant utilizes "frivolous" as a means of discouraging religion. The Court finds that Defendant uses "frivolous" in its legal context, referring to an argument lacking a legal or factual basis. (ECF No. 12 at 7.)
6. Although the Court has duly considered Plaintiff's various arguments opposing the Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), these arguments are insufficient to warrant further discussion.
|
|
|
|
|