Opinion
No. 2:02-CV-0293-B
July 30, 2002
ORDER
Before the Court are defendants' Motions to Substitute the United States as the proper defendant and to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a Complaint in March, 2002 that names three federal tax liens as the "in rem" subjects of the lawsuit and names the Secretary of the Treasury, Paul H. O'Neill, as well as IRS employees Dave Folkman, Jack B. Cheskaty, and Jane Trujillo as defendants. In their Complaint, plaintiffs essentially assert two allegations against the defendants, each of which relates to wrongful levying and collection of taxes. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that (1) the liens are fraudulent and void because the defendants did not reveal the ". . . legitimate foundation for the foregoing alleged claim(s) of lien . . ." and (2) the defendants committed a crime under Florida state law by filing allegedly fraudulent liens. Plaintiffs request that the Court provide injunctive relief by releasing or "cancelling" the federal tax liens. Plaintiffs also request that the Court order that the defendants pay an undetermined amount as a penalty pursuant to Florida law.
The basis of the suit is for actions taken by the defendants in their official capacities namely the preparation and filing of Federal Tax Liens. Because a suit against a government employee acting in his official capacity is a suit against the government, the United States is the proper defendant. See United Sates v. Shaw, 309 U.S. 495, 500-501(1940); Weaver v. United States, 98 E.3d 518, 520(10th Cir. 1996). Additionally, the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs also indicates that the United States is the proper defendant because plaintiffs seek a determination of the validity of federal tax assessments and request release of IRS liens and cessation of IRS collection activity.
Defendants argue this case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs did not exhaust administrative remedies before filing this matter in district court and because the case violates the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). Plaintiffs must pay the outstanding taxes and then file for a refund with the IRS before commencing a suit in District Court to recover the taxes. in addition, the Anti-Injunction Act states in part: "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person." Id. There are limited exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act, but none of them apply to plaintiffs. Therefore, plaintiffs' suit is improper at this time because "Congress has provided express methods by which proposed deficiencies, assessments, or collections of taxes may be challenged, and express prohibition in the Anti-Injunction Act. 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) against suits brought for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax except in the prescribed manner." Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1444 (10th Cir. 1990).
For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby GRANTS the defendants' Motion to Substitute the United States as the proper defendant and defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, plaintiffs' request to "reverse and remand" this matter to the Fourth Judicial District Court, Utah County, Utah is DENIED.