explaining purpose of federal anti-injunction act is “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’ ”
How later courts described this case
- explaining purpose of federal anti-injunction act is “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’ ”
- recognizing that the “clash between the language of the Anti-Injunction Act and the desire of § 501(c)(3) organizations to block the Service from withdrawing [an exemption] has been resolved against the organizations in most cases”
- explaining that the Anti-Injunction Act’s principal purpose is to preserve the Government’s ability to assess and collect taxes expeditiously with “a minimum of preenforcement judicial interference.”
- finding that relegation of plaintiff to tax refund remedy resulted in serious delay and possibly irreparable injury, but that these problems did not "rise to the level of constitutional infirmities”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Reported overruled in part, on other grounds by South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367 (1984) — not on the Supreme Court's list
Id. at 741 n.12, overruled in part on other grounds by South Carolina v. Ragan, 465 U.S. 367, 379
Supreme Court of the United StatesFeb 22, 19846 citing opinionsother groundsin partunconfirmed confidenceRead it
Distinguished
Distinguished by Nelson v. Regan, 560 F. Supp. 1101 (1983)
416 U.S. 725, 736, 94 S.Ct. 2038, 2045, 40 L.Ed.2d 496 (1974), it is inapplicable to questions dealing with the disposition of a tax refund.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Blackmun,
concurring in the result.
J concur in the Court’s judgment and agree with much of the reasoning in its opinion for this'case. As the Court notes, ante, at 738, the University’s obtaining an injunction would directly prevent the collection of what it says are $750,000 in income taxes for 1971 and of over $500,000 for 1972. On the basis of this fact alone, the “purpose”, of the suit is indeed to restrain “the *751 assessment or collection of [a] tax,” and brings 26 U. S.C. §7421 (a) into play.
Since the anti-injunction statute is applicable, we must consider whether the University comes within the statute’s exception recognized in Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U. S. 1 (1962). As to this, I join Part IV of the Court’s opinion to the effect that it has not been shown that “under no circumstances could the Government ultimately prevail.” Id., at 7 .