The Anti-Injunction Act,
§7421, states in pertinent part:
Subchapter B > Sec. 7421.
Sec. 7421. - Prohibition of suits to restrain assessment or collection
Except as provided in sections 6015(e), 6212(a) and (c), 6213(a),
6225(b), 6246(b), 6330(e)(1), 6331(i), 6672(c), 6694(c), and 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.
Some people, including Peymon Mottahedeh
of Freedom Law School (http://www.livefreenow.org)
claim that if the IRS imputes that you have a tax liability and you
want to litigate to protect your property rights in federal district
court before they begin collection, then under the Full Payment Rule,
you must pay the imputed liability first before the court will entertain
your case. He says that if you want to avoid paying the imputed
tax before litigating, the only option available to you is to go to
U.S. Tax Court to have the
matter heard first. However, by going to Tax Court, you surrender
your right to a jury trial and your right to appeal to the Federal District
Court, which bypasses an important Constitutional protection under the
Seventh Amendment to have a jury trial. This section shall establish
the concept of a person called a “nontaxpayer” and show that the Full
Payment Rule does not apply to nontaxpayers and it will
show that the only people who are “taxpayers” for Subtitle A income
taxes are those who volunteer to be, because our system is based on
self-assessment and payment and not on distraint, according to the Supreme
As we stated in section 5.6.3 of the
Hoax entitled "Taxpayer v. Nontaxpayer", there are two types of
Americans: "taxpayers" and "nontaxpayers".
"The revenue laws are a code or
system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate
to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without
their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers,
and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies
in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal,
and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue
"The distinction between persons
and things within the scope of the revenue laws and those without
[Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 @ 238(1922)]
The IRS has no delegated authority to
declare or make a person who is a "nontaxpayer" into a "taxpayer":
"A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not
include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment
against individuals not specified in the states as a person liable
for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status
before the appellation of 'taxpayer' is bestowed upon them and their
property is seized..."
[Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)]
The same is true of the federal courts:
"And by statutory definition the term "taxpayer" includes
any person, trust or estate subject to a tax imposed by the revenue
act. ...Since the statutory definition of taxpayer is exclusive,
the federal [and state] courts do not have the power to create nonstatutory
taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Revenue
[C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass'n., 100 F.2d.18 (1939)]
United States Code
TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
PART VI - PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS
CHAPTER 151 - DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS
Creation of remedy
(a) In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction,
except with respect to Federal taxes other than actions brought
under section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
a proceeding under section 505 or 1146 of title 11, or in any civil
action involving an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding
regarding a class or kind of merchandise of a free trade area country
(as defined in section 516A(f)(10) of the Tariff Act of 1930), as
determined by the administering authority, any court of the
United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare
the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking
such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could
be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect
of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.
(b) For limitations on actions brought with respect to drug patents
see section 505 or 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
The reason for this is clear:
- "Our tax system is based upon voluntary assessment and payment,
not upon distraint" Flora v. United States,
362 U.S. 145 (1960).
- There is no statute making anyone liable for the payment
of Subtitle A income taxes. The implementing regulation at
26 CFR §1.1-1 that creates an imputed liability is illegal, null,
and fraudulent on its face because it exceeds the scope of the statute
it implements at
"To the extent that regulations
implement the statute, they have the force and effect
of law...The regulation implements
the statute and cannot vitiate or change the statute..."
[Spreckles v. C.I.R., 119 F.2d, 667]
Consequently, the only person
who can make you, a natural person, into a "taxpayer" and a person
"liable for" the Subtitle A personal income tax is you and only
you! That is why even our own federal government
says our system of taxation is based on voluntary compliance and
"Our tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary
[Mortimer Caplin, Internal Revenue Audit Manual (1975)]
Any other approach to Subtitle A income taxation
of natural persons leads us to the conclusion that income tax forms
are not voluntary, but compelled, and if they are compelled,
then they are inadmissible as evidence in court as determined by the
U.S. Supreme Court in Weeks v. United States,
232 U.S. 383 (1914) because they were illegally obtained under duress.
Absent evidence and first-hand knowledge, there can be no way to create
a tax liability. The W-2's your employer sends to the IRS are
merely hearsay evidence.
Although many in the government and legal profession
would like to deceive you into believing otherwise, it is always
possible and advisable to recover wrongfully collected taxes
or to stop the wrongful collection of illegally or improperly assessed
taxes without paying the illegal tax first:
"Statute prohibiting suits to restrain assessment or collection
of Federal taxes is general in its terms and should not be construed
as abrogating equitable principles which permit suits to restrain
collection where exaction is illegal and there exist special circumstances
sufficient to bring case within some acknowledged head of equity
"Statute prohibiting suits to restrain assessment and collection
of Federal taxes is directed at the person liable for taxes and
is not intended to preclude courts from affording protection to
one not liable to taxes whose property may be in danger of seizure
and sale by the taxing authorities." Shelton v. Gill, 202
F.2d 503 (1953)
The Supreme Court has gone
so far as to say that those who try to collect taxes outside their Constitutional
authority are communists! Below is an excellent cite from
the Supreme Court that frames the issues very clearly of what must happen
to an IRS agent who tries to extort money outside his lawful authority.
This cite is from
Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270; 5 S.Ct. 903 (1885)
“… the maxim that the King can do no wrong has no place
in our system of government; yet it is also true, in respect to
the State itself, that whatever wrong is attempted in its name is
imputable to its government and not to the State, for, as it can
speak and act only by law, whatever it does say and do must be lawful.
That which therefore is unlawful because made so by the supreme
law, the Constitution of the United States, is not the word or deed
of the State, but is the mere wrong and trespass of those individual
persons who falsely spread and act in its name."
"This distinction is essential to the idea of constitutional
government. To deny it or blot it out obliterates the line of demarcation
that separates constitutional government from absolutism, free self-
government based on the sovereignty of the people from that despotism,
whether of the one or the many, which enables the agent of the state
to declare and decree that he is the state; to say 'L'Etat, c'est
moi.' Of what avail are written constitutions, whose bills of right,
for the security of individual liberty, have been written too often
with the blood of martyrs shed upon the battle-field and the scaffold,
if their limitations and restraints upon power may be overpassed
with impunity by the very agencies created and appointed to guard,
defend, and enforce them; and that, too, with the sacred authority
of law, not only compelling obedience, but entitled to respect?
And how else can these principles of individual liberty and right
be maintained, if, when violated, the judicial tribunals are forbidden
to visit penalties upon individual offenders, who are the instruments
of wrong, whenever they interpose the shield of the state?
The doctrine is not to be tolerated.
The whole frame and scheme of the political institutions
of this country, state and federal, protest against it. Their continued
existence is not compatible with it.
It is the doctrine of absolutism,
pure, simple, and naked, and of communism which is its twin, the
double progeny of the same evil birth."
And here is another example
from an similar but earlier Supreme Court decision in the case of
Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine Co.,
284 U.S. 498; 52 S.Ct. 260; 76 L.Ed. 422 (1932):
“Notwithstanding the Federal statute declaring that no suit
for the purpose of restraining the collection of any tax shall be
maintained in any court, a suit may be maintained to enjoin collection
where complainant shows that in addition to the illegality of the
exaction there exist special and extraordinary circumstances sufficient
to bring the case within some acknowledged head of equity jurisprudence.”
“When a law is passed, certified, signed, and filed, it must
as to form, be conclusive.” P. 502; 426. [Supporting citation omitted.]
“Being a revenue law, it must be construed most favorably
in behalf of the taxpayer.” P. 502; 426. [Supporting citations
“It is elementary that tax laws are to be interpreted liberally
in favor of taxpayers and that words defining things to be taxed
may not be extended beyond their clear import. Doubts
must be resolved against the Government and in favor of taxpayers.”
P. 508; 429.
[Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine Co.,
284 U.S. 498; 52 S.Ct. 260; 76 L.Ed. 422 (1932)]
A knowledge of the above information
can be very powerful in addressing wrongs of the Internal
Revenue Service and in defeating the Anti-Injunction Act (26
U.S.C. §7421). The case of Economy Plumbing and Heating
v. United States, 470 F.2d 585 (1972) very clearly describes how
to proceed to prevent illegal assessment or collection of taxes against
"In support of the foregoing conclusions, we wish to point
out and emphasize that Congress has established a well-defined and
comprehensive administrative system for the recovery of overpaid
taxes by taxpayers. All taxpayers who have overpaid their
taxes are within this system and must follow the appropriate procedures
and regulations, including the timely filing of claims for refunds
for overpayment of taxes, if they are to have the benefits of the
system. On the other hand, persons who are not taxpayers
are not within the system and can obtain no benefit by following
the procedures prescribed for taxpayers, such as filing of claims
for refunds. For example, there have been many cases where
parties have sued to enjoin the assessment or collection of their
moneys to pay the taxes of another, notwithstanding Section 263
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 (26 U.S.C. §3653 (1952 ed.)
that provided that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment
or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court".
The courts have allowed these suits because the parties filing the
suits were not taxpayers and were outside the revenue system of
which the above statute is part. See Long v. Rasmussen,
281 F. 236 (D.Mont. 1922); Rothensies v. Ullman, 110 F.2d
590 (3rd Cir. 1940); Raffaele v. Granger, 196 F.2d 620 (3rt
Cir. 1952); and Bullock v. Latham, 306 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1962).
In Long v. Rasmussen, the court said:
"* * * They [the revenue laws] relate to taxpayers,
and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope.
No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made
to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law.
* * * [Id. 281 F. at 238]
"In other cases suits have been filed by nontaxpayers whose
property has already been taken to pay the taxes of others, without
filing claims for refund, and such suits have been allowed against
the Collector or District Director of Internal Revenue in actions
similar to the old action in assumpsit for money had and received,
even though lacking in statutory authority."
"Our plaintiffs are not taxpayers and could not sue for a
tax refund as a taxpayer could. All they could do was to sue
to recover their property, which was the funds due them as an equitable
adjustment under the contract, and this is exactly what they have
"The above cases are illustrative of the proposition that
a nontaxpayer is outside the administrative system set up for the
collection of a refund of overpaid taxes, and is not required to
file a claim for refund to recover money taken from him to pay the
taxes of another."
[Economy Plumbing & Heating v. United States, 470 F.2d 585 (1972)
Wow! This is powerful stuff folks!
So how to we enjoin or stop the illegal collection of a tax against
a "nontaxpayer"? The courts have identified the criteria as follows:
- No formal assessment was issued against the injured party.
See Gordon v. U.S. Treasury Dept., Int. Rev. Serv., 322 F.Supp.
537 (1970). The way to qualify for this type of motion is
to use the FOIA to request a copy of any and all valid assessments
prior to your first hearing and to include the response as evidence
with your pleading to enjoin collection. Remember, the only
person who can assess a natural person is himself or herself!
Substitute for returns are not authorized for form 1040 or 1040NR
- The property of a third person other than a "taxpayer"
has been wrongfully levied or liened. (see
- The "legal remedy is inadequate and it is apparent that, under
most liberal view of law and facts, United States cannot establish
its claim." Walker v. Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Treasury
Dept., 333 F.2d 768 (1964).
- The party against whom collection was instituted is not liable
for the tax. See Shelton v. Gill, 202 F.2d 503 (1953)
- A "taxpayer" who is the subject of a lawfully
and properly assessed tax under may be granted an injunction under
"special and extraordinary circumstances of sufficient importance
to warrant court interference". Examples might be that the
collection of the tax not owed against a nontaxpayer might impose
severe hardship. See Martin v. Andrews, 238 F.2d 552
(9th Cir. 1956); Singleton v. Mathis, 284 F.2d 616 (8th Cir.
According to Internal Revenue Manual
1. It has been uniformly held that the waiver of sovereign
immunity in section 1346(a)(1) of the Judiciary Code (28 U.S.C.
§1346(a)(1)) only applies to taxpayers, and not nontaxpayers or
interested parties. Busse v. United States, 542 F.2d
421 (7th Cir. 1076); Hofheinz v. United States, 511
F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1975); Eighth Street Baptist Church v.
United States, 431 F.2d 1193 (10th Cir. 1970); Phillips
v. United States, 346 F.2d 999 (2d Cir. 1965); First
Nat'l Bank of Emlenton v. United States, 165 F.2d 297 (3rd
Cir. 1959). Accordingly, where a party not liable for the tax has
brought a refund suit, a motion to dismiss should be recommended.
Consequently, a “nontaxpayer” may use
any statute in the Internal Revenue Code as authority to sue for a refund
to recover taxes voluntarily paid for which he was not liable. If you
don’t think you are liable, then for God’s sake don’t pay the tax first
and then litigate to get it back! On the surface, this
would appear to encourage officials within the federal government to
act irresponsibly towards the property rights of Americans who are nontaxpayers
because it would create a situation where they could steal property
with impunity through illegal levies and liens. However, if this nontaxpayer
paid the illegal tax under duress, he may sue for damages
and request a writ of mandamus to recover the taxes paid:
"Person voluntarily paying illegal tax has no claim for repayment."
"Person paying illegal tax under duress has legal claim
for its repayment, notwithstanding money has gone into treasury
and has been paid out by disbursing officers."
"Duress in payment of illegal tax may be either express or
implied, and legal duty to refund exists in both instances."
[Austin Nat. Bank of Austin v. Sheppard, 71 S.W.2d 242 (1934)]
Similarly, if property of a nontaxpayer was illegally seized or garnished
or levied by the IRS, then the nontaxpayer should pursue a
writ of mandamus rather than
a refund suit, which is an equity suit to compensate for the wrong committed
by the government against his property rights.
"...because the state is interested in compelling its agents
to obey its commands, it is well settled that mandamus will lie
to compel the payment of money by public officials, when the duty
to pay it is plain, and the claim is just, undisputed in amount,
and based on a clear legal right."
[State v. County Com'rs of Fairfield County, 99 Conn. 378; 121 A.
Other equitable remedies may be available for the
case where a person is a “nontaxpayer” and has been mistreated or abused
by the IRS by being treated as a “taxpayer” and made the target of wrongful
collection actions. Recall that income taxes based on labor
of a natural person who is not a a privileged "public officers" of the
United States government and who is living in a state of the Union and
outside of the federal zone amount to slavery, as we pointed out earlier
in section 5.4.1. Slavery is prohibited by both the Thirteenth
Amendment and by various federal statutes, including
§1994 (Peonage abolished) and 18 U.S.C. §1589 (forced
labor). That section even goes so far as to say that wrongful
use or abuse of the legal process also amounts to slavery, and that
is exactly what the IRS does: harass those who don’t want to pay income
taxes by abusing the legal process. Here is the section:
TITLE 18 >
77 > Sec. 1589.
- Forced labor
Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services
of a person -
(1) by threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint
against, that person or another person;
(2) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to
cause the person to believe that, if the person did not perform
such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer
serious harm or physical restraint; or
(3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation
of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt
to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated
sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or
18 U.S.C. §1593 actually
mandates restitution for people who have been so enslaved.
You may then be able to use this as a basis for why you can’t
abide by the full payment rule (if the judge insists that you are a
“taxpayer”) and why the government and not you must pay back the money
that they owe you.
PART I >
77 > Sec. 1593.
- Mandatory restitution
(a) Notwithstanding section 3663 or 3663A, and
in addition to any other civil or criminal penalties authorized
by law, the court shall order restitution for any offense under
order of restitution under this section shall direct the defendant
to pay the victim (through the appropriate court mechanism) the
full amount of the victim's losses, as determined by the court under
paragraph (3) of this subsection.
(2) An order
of restitution under this section shall be issued and enforced in
accordance with section 3664 in the same manner as an order under
(3) As used
in this subsection, the term ''full amount of the victim's losses''
has the same meaning as provided in section 2259(b)(3) and shall
in addition include the greater of the gross income or value to
the defendant of the victim's services or labor or the value of
the victim's labor as guaranteed under the minimum wage and overtime
guarantees of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29
201 et seq.).
(c) As used in this section, the term ''victim'' means
the individual harmed as a result of a crime under this chapter,
including, in the case of a victim who is under 18 years of age,
incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, the legal guardian of the
victim or a representative of the victim's estate, or another family
member, or any other person appointed as suitable by the court,
but in no event shall the defendant be named such representative
This section provides a powerful
tool to recover monies wrongfully assessed or collected against those
who are “nontaxpayers”. The other thing to remember is
that all the statutes dealing with slavery, unlike all those dealing
with most other federal matters, may be enforced inside states of the
union as well as in the federal zone, according to the Supreme Court.
Here is the authority from Clyatt v. U.S.,
197 U.S. 207 (1904):
“Other authorities to the same effect might be cited.
It is not open to doubt that Congress may enforce the Thirteenth
Amendment by direct legislation, punishing the holding of a person
in slavery or in involuntary servitude except as a punishment for
a crime. In the exercise of that power Congress has
enacted these sections denouncing peonage, and punishing one who
holds another in that condition of involuntary servitude.
This legislation is not limited to the territories or
other parts of the strictly national domain, but is operative in
the states and wherever the sovereignty of the United States extends.
We entertain no doubt of the validity of this legislation,
or of its applicability to the case of any person holding another
in a state of peonage, and this whether there be municipal ordinace
or state law sacntioning such holding. It operates
directly on every citizen of the Republic, wherever his residence
[Clyatt v. U.S.,
197 U.S. 207 (1904)]
So even if the slavery occurred
inside a state of the union, federal courts still have the authority
to remedy it under the above statutes! If you are living
outside of the federal zone in one of the 50 states of the union, then
you are protected by this law, and the court MUST to give you restitution
if you can show the servitude was involuntary or coerced.
If the IRS has made you into a debt slave or a peon in paying
off debts that you weren’t liable for as a “nontaxpayer”, then the district
courts HAVE to give you restitution by law.
“The constitutionality and scope of sections 1990 and 5526
present the first questions for our consideration.
They prohibit peonage. What is peonage?
It may be defined as a state or condition of compulsory service,
based upon the indebtedness of the peon to the master.
The basal fact is indebtedness. As said
by Judge Benedict, delivering the opinion in Jaremillo v. Romero,
1 N.Mex. 190, 194: ‘One fact existed universally; all were indebted
to their masters. This was the cord by which they
seemed bound to their masters’ service.’ Upon this is based
a condition of compulsory service. Peonage is sometimes
classified as voluntary or involuntary, but this implies simply
a difference in the mode of origin, but not in the character of
the servitude. The one exists where the debtor
voluntarily contracts to enter the service of his creditor.
The other is forced upon the debtor by some provision of
law. But peonage, however created, is compulsory
service, involuntary servitude. The peon can release
himself therefrom, it is true, by the payment of the debt, but otherwise
the service is enforced. A clear distinction exists between
peonage and the voluntary performance of labor or rendering of
services in payment of a debt. In the latter case the debtor,
though contracting to pay his indebtedness by labor or service,
and subject like any other contractor to an action for damages for
breach of that contract, can elect at any time to break it, and
no law or force compels performance or continuance of the service.”
[Clyatt v. U.S.,
197 U.S. 207 (1904)]
Powerful stuff, folks!
Burden of proof
"It has been held by the Supreme Court that under the exception
to the Anti-Injunction Act's (26 USCS §7421(a)) prohibition of suits
to restrain the assessment or collection of federal taxes, whereby
an injunction may be obtained if
"(1) it is clear that under no circumstances can the government
ultimately prevail, and
"(2) equity jurisdiction otherwise exists (see §10[a],
"the question whether the government will ultimately prevail
is to be resolved on the basis of the information possessed by the
government at the time of the suit, and that while the burden of
producing evidence is on the taxpayer, the government will be required
to disclose, through discovery, facts in its sole possession, unless
it voluntarily discloses the basis for its assessment, which if
sufficient, will terminate discovery proceedings and justify judgment
for the government."
[Laing v. United States,
423 U.S. 161; 96 S.Ct. 473; 46 L.Ed.2d 416 (1976)]
Other Remedies: Bivens Actions
In addition to the remedies above, nontaxpayes
can also pursue a Bivens action against those federal
government officials who have illegally attempted to collect or assess
taxes against sovereign citizens who are "nontaxpayers". See
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388; 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971).
"A "Bivens action" provides action for damages
to vindicate constitutional right when a federal government official
has violated such right; action is available if no equally effective
remedy is available, no explicit congressional declaration precludes
recovery, and no "special factors counsel hesitation." [Rauschenberg
v. Williamson, C.A. 11(Ga). 785 F.2d 985, 987]
""Bivens action" is nonstatutory counterpart of
suit brought pursuant to §1983, and is aimed at federal, rather
than state, officials. [Mahoney v. National Organization
of Women, D.Conn., 681 F.Supp. 129, 132]
"In "Bivens action," damages may be obtained for injuries consequent
upon violation of Constitution by federal officials." [Kingsley
v. Bureau of Prisons, C.A.2 (N.Y.), 937 F.2d 26, 31."
Words and Phrases, Vol. 40, p. 134]
The party we are suing in a Bivens action is usually a federal official
as a private individual, and because it is an individual, then sovereign
immunity of the federal government cannot be asserted to evade liability.
Bivens actions involve injuries that cannot be addressed or redressed
through statutory means, usually because Congress has refused to pass
a statute or law making a harmful action of a federal official illegal.
The wrongful collection of federal taxes against nontaxpayers is an
example of a behavior congress refuses to make illegal, because they
want to STEAL your money with impugnity! Here is what one district
court said about this:
"Although Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause applies
only to states, Fifth Amendment's due process clause contains equal
protection component applicable to federal government."
"Statutory actions may give breadth to constitutional rights,
but congressional inaction cannot suffocate them."
"Among other things, the Constitution is a compendium of rights,
and their enforcement does not depend on statutory enrollment.
As Bivens establishes, legislative inaction does not vitiate
constitutional rights. Statutory actions may give breath to
constitutional rights, but congressional inaction cannot suffocate
[Davis v. Passman, 544 F.2d 865 (1977)]
actions are based on the idea that public officials are not free of
liability if they commit a wrong that is not authorized by their delegated
"But immunity from suit is a high attribute of sovereignty--a
prerogative of the State itself--which cannot be availed of by public
agents when sued for their own torts. The 11th Amendment was
not intended to afford them freedom from liability in any case where,
under color of their office, they have injured one of the State's
citizens. To grant them such immunity would be to create a
privileged class free from liability from wrongs inflicted or injuries
threatened. Public agents must be liable to the law, unless
they are to be put above the law." [Citing Hopkins v. Clemson Agri.
College, 221 U.S. 636].
[Old Colony Trust Co. v. Seattle,
271 U.S. 427; 70 L.Ed. 1019 (1926)]
occasions, the government will substitute itself as the defendant in
a Bivens suit and in doing so, may not assert sovereign immunity.
This may only occur, according to the Anti-Injunction Act, if the party
injured is not the "taxpayer" or person against whom the tax was assessed,
which means they are an innocent third party who has been injured by
wrongful collection action. The Anti-Injunction Act states the
following with regard to substitution of itself as party for the federal
U.S.C. §7426 Civil actions by persons other than taxpayers
(e) Substitution of United States as party
If an action, which could be brought
against the United States under this section, is improperly brought
against any officer or employee of the United States (or former
officer or employee) or his personal representative, the court shall
order, upon such terms as are just, that the pleadings be amended
to substitute the United States as a party for such officer or employee
as of the time such action was commenced upon proper service of
process on the United States."
get the idea from the above that the government runs a protection racket
so its employees who are acting outside the law will be free of legal
consequence for their improprieties? Sure looks that way
further information on the subject of Injunction Actions, read the
U.S. Attorney's Manual, section 6-5.330 entitled "Injunction Actions"