Patrick L. Barr v. United States of America, E. Thompson, Revenue Officer, and Internal Revenue Service

Seventh Circuit

Patrick L. Barr v. United States of America, E. Thompson, Revenue Officer, and Internal Revenue Service

736 F.2d 1134

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedJune 12, 1984

Docket83-2221

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 736 F.2d 1134 (Patrick L. Barr v. United States of America, E. Thompson, Revenue Officer, and Internal Revenue Service) 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

Patrick L. Barr v. United States of America, E. Thompson, Revenue Officer, and Internal Revenue Service, 736 F.2d 1134 (7th Cir. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pro-se plaintiff-appellant Patrick Barr appeals from the judgment of the district court dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

Barr filed a withholding statement (Form W-4) with his employer claiming that he was exempt from withholding. The government subsequently determined that Barr’s representations were false, and assessed a $500 penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6682. .Barr then filed a “Petition to Enforce Administrative Procedure” which the district court interpreted as a request to enjoin collection of the assessed penalty. As such, the suit was dismissed as barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421, which provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained ____” Section 6671 provides that the penalty at issue here is a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.

A narrow exception to the scope of the Anti-Injunction Act was created by the Supreme Court in Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 8 L.Ed.2d 292 (1962). A taxpayer may succeed in enjoining collection of a tax if he can show that 1) under the most liberal view of the facts and the law, the United States could not establish its claim, and 2) the taxpayer has no adequate remedy at law. Here, Mr. Barr does not address the merits of the penalty assessment let alone show that the government is unlikely to prevail. Although the case could be dismissed on this basis alone, we also note that the taxpayer has an adequate remedy at law. The legality of the assessment can readily be challenged via a suit for a refund in federal district court or the Court of Claims. 1

The judgment of the district court is accordingly

Affirmed.

1

. To sue for a refund, taxpayer must, of course, have paid the tax — or had it seized or garnished. There is no indication in the record that the penalty had been collected, although appellant states in his brief that the IRS served a “Notice of Levy on Wages and Salary” on him. If the penalty had been collected, a suit to enjoin its collection would be moot as well as barred by the Anti-Injunction Act.

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

PER CURIAM.

Pro-se plaintiff-appellant Patrick Barr appeals from the judgment of the district court dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

Barr filed a withholding statement (Form W-4) with his employer claiming that he was exempt from withholding. The government subsequently determined that Barr’s representations were false, and assessed a $500 penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6682. .Barr then filed a “Petition to Enforce Administrative Procedure” which the district court interpreted as a request to enjoin collection of the assessed penalty. As such, the suit was dismissed as barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421, which provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained ____” Section 6671 provides that the penalty at issue here is a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.

A narrow exception to the scope of the Anti-Injunction Act was created by the Supreme Court in Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 8 L.Ed.2d 292 (1962). A taxpayer may succeed in enjoining collection of a tax if he can show that 1) under the most liberal view of the facts and the law, the United States could not establish its claim, and 2) the taxpayer has no adequate remedy at law. Here, Mr. Barr does not address the merits of the penalty assessment let alone show that the government is unlikely to prevail. Although the case could be dismissed on this basis alone, we also note that the taxpayer has an adequate remedy at law. The legality of the assessment can readily be challenged via a suit for a refund in federal district court or the Court of Claims. 1

The judgment of the district court is accordingly

Affirmed.

1

. To sue for a refund, taxpayer must, of course, have paid the tax — or had it seized or garnished. There is no indication in the record that the penalty had been collected, although appellant states in his brief that the IRS served a “Notice of Levy on Wages and Salary” on him. If the penalty had been collected, a suit to enjoin its collection would be moot as well as barred by the Anti-Injunction Act.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

736 F.2d 1134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patrick-l-barr-v-united-states-of-america-e-thompson-revenue-officer-ca7-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack