- 14 -
Congress has given taxpayers the right to bring a civil action
for damages and has established criminal sanctions for Federal
officers or employees who infringe upon a taxpayer’s rights. See
sections 6103, 7213, 7213A, and 7431, discussed infra.
III. Anti-Injunction Act
In Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 736 (1974), the
court stated the purpose of the Anti-Injunction Act as follows:
The Anti-Injunction Act apparently has no recorded
legislative history, but its language could scarcely be
more explicit - ‘no suit for the purpose of restraining
the assessment or collection of any tax shall be
maintained in any court * * *’[.] The Court has
interpreted the principal purpose of this language to
be the protection of the Government’s need to assess
and collect taxes as expeditiously as possible with a
minimum of preenforcement judicial interference, ‘and
to require that the legal right to the disputed sums be
determined in a suit for refund.’” [Citations
omitted.]
It is evident that the primary purpose of petitioner’s case
is to prevent the assessment and collection of taxes for his 1999
taxable year. Congress has given taxpayers “the right to sue the
government for a refund if forced to overpay taxes, and it would
make the collection of taxes chaotic if a taxpayer could bypass
the remedies provided by Congress simply by bringing a damage
action against Treasury employees.” Cameron v. IRS, 773 F.2d
126, 129 (7th Cir. 1985). “There are sound reasons not to
subject the taxing system to an extra-statutory measure of
damages without express Congressional authority.” Baddour, Inc.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008