Hall v. United States

Seventh Circuit

Hall v. United States

749 F.2d 373, 55 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 364, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24612

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedMarch 12, 1984

DocketNo. 83-1534

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 749 F.2d 373 (Hall v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hall v. United States, 749 F.2d 373, 55 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 364, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24612 (7th Cir. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Hall appeals from the district court’s denial of his request for an injunction to prevent the Internal Revenue Service from levying upon his wages to satisfy tax penalties and interest charges that he owes the government. The basis of the district court’s action was that the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421, divested the court of power to issue the injunction. We can consider the merits of the district court's action, however, only if we have jurisdiction of the appeal. We do not. The record shows that, while the appeal was pending, the levy that Hall sought to enjoin was paid in full. There is nothing left to enjoin. Hall therefore has nothing concrete to gain from winning this appeal; it is moot, and must be dismissed. See, e.g., Monzillo v. Biller, 735 F.2d 1456, 1459-60 (D.C.Cir.1984). True, the mere fact that the levy has been paid does not mean there is no controversy between Hall and the Internal Revenue Service. But if Hall thinks his wages were wrongfully taken from him and should be returned, he should file a [374]*374claim for refund, and if necessary (after exhausting his administrative remedies) a suit for refund. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1); 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). It will do him no good to get an injunction against an act that has already taken place.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Hall appeals from the district court’s denial of his request for an injunction to prevent the Internal Revenue Service from levying upon his wages to satisfy tax penalties and interest charges that he owes the government. The basis of the district court’s action was that the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421, divested the court of power to issue the injunction. We can consider the merits of the district court's action, however, only if we have jurisdiction of the appeal. We do not. The record shows that, while the appeal was pending, the levy that Hall sought to enjoin was paid in full. There is nothing left to enjoin. Hall therefore has nothing concrete to gain from winning this appeal; it is moot, and must be dismissed. See, e.g., Monzillo v. Biller, 735 F.2d 1456, 1459-60 (D.C.Cir.1984). True, the mere fact that the levy has been paid does not mean there is no controversy between Hall and the Internal Revenue Service. But if Hall thinks his wages were wrongfully taken from him and should be returned, he should file a [374]*374claim for refund, and if necessary (after exhausting his administrative remedies) a suit for refund. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1); 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). It will do him no good to get an injunction against an act that has already taken place.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

749 F.2d 373, 55 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 364, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-united-states-ca7-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack