- 15 -
v. United States, supra at 809. The Anti-Injunction Act
expressly bars petitioner’s action.10
Furthermore, the Courts of Appeals for the First, Second,
Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth
Circuits are all in agreement that “Bivens relief is not
available for alleged constitutional violations by IRS officials
involved in the process of assessing and collecting taxes”.
Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004); see Hudson
Valley Black Press v. IRS, 409 F.3d 106, 113 (2d Cir. 2005);
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Rossotti, 317 F.3d 401, 413 (4th Cir.
2003); Shreiber v. Mastrogiovanni, 214 F.3d 148, 155 (3d Cir.
2000); Dahn v. United States, 127 F.3d 1249, 1254 (10th Cir.
1997); Fishburn v. Brown, 125 F.3d 979, 982-983 (6th Cir. 1997);
Vennes v. An Unknown Number of Unidentified Agents of the United
States, 26 F.3d 1448, 1453-1454 (8th Cir. 1994); McMillen v.
United States Department of Treasury, 960 F.2d 187, 190 (1st Cir.
1991); Baddour, Inc. v. United States, supra at 807-809; Cameron
v. IRS, supra at 129. This Court will not judicially create a
remedy for petitioner.
10None of the exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act is
applicable to the instant case. Sec. 7421(a) provides: “Except
as provided in sections 6015(e), 6212(a) and (c), 6213(a),
6225(b), 6246(b), 6330(e)(1), 6331(i), 6672(c), 6694(c), 7426(a)
and (b)(1), 7429(b), and 7436, no suit for the purpose of
restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be
maintained in any court by any person”.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008