§7421 — Prohibition of suits to restrain assessment or collection
40 cases·11 followed·2 distinguished·1 criticized·1 overruled·25 cited—28% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §7421
Except as provided in sections 6015(e), 6212(a) and (c), 6213(a), 6232(c), 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, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.
No suit shall be maintained in any court for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection (pursuant to the provisions of chapter 71) of—
the amount of the liability, at law or in equity, of a transferee of property of a taxpayer in respect of any internal revenue tax, or
the amount of the liability of a fiduciary under
section 3713(b) of title 31
, United States Code, in respect of any such tax.
40 Citing Cases
Conclusion But for the limited exceptions provided therein, section 7421 provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person.” The foregoing demonstrates that the opinion of the Court is consistent with the Court’s analysis in Hallmark and Sanders, as well as the context of the statutory fra
x deficiency cases, the opinion of the Court has created a new approach to determine whether we have jurisdiction. Because we disagree with that approach, we respectfully dissent. The parties also agree that the IRS did not intend the letter to be a notice of worker classification determination. Sec. 6213(a) provides for this remedy by waiving the sec. 7421 anti-injunction provisions.
ts to collect a deficiency without sending the required statutorynotice, or during the ninety-daywaiting period, the taxpayermay request that a district court or the Tax Court enjoin the Service from assessing and collecting the assessed tax [citing section 7421]. Ifthe taxpayer chooses to file a petition in the Tax Court, no collection action may be taken until the Tax Court has reached a final decision. Thus, a deficiency assessment subject to such restrictions may not be assessed until the ta
Section 7421, commonly called the Anti-Injunction Act, provides that "no suit for the purpose ofrestraining the assessment or collection ofany tax shall be maintained in any court by any person." The section 6707 penalty is an "assess- able penalty." Because the pending IRS administrative proceeding involves a pro- posed "assessment * * * of[a] tax
Section 7421, commonly called the Anti-Injunction Act, provides that "no suit for the purpose ofrestraining the assessment or collection ofany tax shall be maintained in any court by any person." The section 6707 penalty is an "assess- able penalty." Because the pending IRS administrative proceeding involves a pro- posed "assessment * * * of[a] tax
Section 7421, commonly called the Anti-Injunction Act, provides that "no suit for the purpose ofrestraining the assessment or collection ofany tax shall be maintained in any court by any person." The section 6707 penalty is an "assess- able penalty." Because the pending IRS administrative proceeding involves a pro- posed "assessment * * * of[a] tax
ly follow the accountable plan rules outlined in section 1.62-2, Income Tax Regs. The IRS initially analyzedthis case as an accountable plan dispute. SECC only later argued that its workers were 2Sec. 6213(a) provides for this remedy by waiving the sec. 7421 anti- injunction provisions. - 38 - dual-capacity employees or independent contractors. Under the opinion ofthe Court's approach, any taxpayer in an accountable plan case could make these arguments and transform its case into a worker classi
and additional delay. 6It may well be that in substance petitioner is asking the Court to enjoin respondent from collecting tax from him directly and instead order respondentto collect only from the Trust. Ifso, such an injunction would run afoul ofsec. 7421, the Anti-Injunction Act. - 16 - ("We * * * find no statutoryviolation arising from the IRS's failure to investigate at this time the available equity in the taxpayer's property. This failure cannot, therefore, provide the basis for overtur
tutory framework intended by Congress as limitations not negated by the APA.” Fostvedt v. United States, 978 F.2d 1201, 1204 (10th Cir. 1992); see McCarty v. United States, 929 F.2d 1085, 1088 (5th Cir. 1991) (precluding relief under the APA because sec. 7421 is a specific statute that bars the requested relief); Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1444 (10th Cir. 1990) (“Congress has provided express methods by which proposed deficiencies, assessments, or collections of taxes may be chall
tutory framework intended by Congress as limitations not negated by the APA.” Fostvedt v. United States, 978 F.2d 1201, 1204 (10th Cir. 1992); see McCarty v. United States, 929 F.2d 1085, 1088 (5th Cir. 1991) (precluding relief under the APA because sec. 7421 is a specific statute that bars the requested relief); Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1444 (10th Cir. 1990) (“Congress has provided express methods by which proposed deficiencies, assessments, or collections of taxes may be chall