Insofar as Karas seeks damages resulting from defendant's alleged breach of contract and tortious interference, his claims are barred by 26 U.S.C. § 3403 and New York Tax Law § 675. To the extent he seeks an order restrain- ing defendant from future withholding of federal and state taxes, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1341 deprive this court of jurisdiction, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 pro- hibits the issuance of any declaratory judgment to that effect. Because the breach of contract and tor- tious interference claims are dismissed, Karas's mo- tion for summary judgment on those claims is denied.

While the Anti-Injunction Act bars the Court from granting injunctions against the IRS, the Supreme Court has recognized the two-tiered exception which Wade argues applies here. 55 As set forth in Bob Jones, the literal terms of § 7421(a) may be avoided if the plaintiff can prove irreparable injury and certainty of success on the merits.56 Wade argues that the Anti-Injunction Act is inapplicable to him because he qualifies under this exception.57 Regarding the first factor, Wade alleges that the liens against his property constitute “an imminent threat of irreparable harm” 58 because there would be no way for him to recoup any damages after his property has been seized and sold.59 However, “the availability of a refund suit . . . negate[s] any claim of irreparable injury.

Plaintiffs’ claims by their terms thus fall within the scope of the AIA, which provides that “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 Case 2:10-cv-11156-GCS-RSW Document 12 Filed 05/11/10 Page 26 of 46 15 not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.” 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). Even if plaintiffs did not so explicitly lodge their claims within the purview of the AIA, the AIA would still bar the relief they seek.

The Anti-Injunction Act and Tax Exception to the Declaratory Judgment Act Deprive the Court of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction The AIA provides that “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.” 26 U.S.C. § 7421 (emphasis added). The AIA and the tax exception to the DJA5 together protect “the Government’s ability to collect a consistent stream of revenue” by requiring taxpayers to fully pay their liabilities before challenging them in district court.

This action is not (and could not be) brought under 26 U.S.C. § 7426, because Ms. Saepoff is not a person “other than the person against whom is assessed the tax out of which such levy arose.” Similarly, none of the other exceptions listed in 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) apply to Ms. Saepoff’s claims. Case 2:17-cv-00482-JLR Document 28 Filed 04/28/17 Page 4 of 6 DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BANK’S MOTION TO DISMISS (NO. 2:17-CV-00482-JLR) - 5 PETERSON RUSSELL KELLY PLLC 1850 Skyline Tower – 10900 NE Fourth Street Bellevue, Washington 98004-8341 TELEPHONE (425) 462-4700 FAX (425) 451-0714 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 105981 113 hd28ep30f0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I caused to be served in the manner noted below a copy of the foregoing pleading on the following individual(s): Jessica Saepoff P.O. Box 846 Mercer Island, WA 98040 E-Mail: jpsaepoff@gmail.com [ ] Via Facsimile [X] Via First Class Mail [ ] Via Messenger [X] Via Email [ ] Via CM/ECF Electronic Notice I certify that I caused to be served in the manner noted below a copy of the foregoing pleading on the following individual(s) via the Court’s ECF system: J

See 26 U.S.C. § 7421. Plaintiff’s complaint to enforce the Trust is indisputably barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, which expressly provides that “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.” 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff’s complaint seeks to prevent the Service from collecting her tax Case 8:16-cv-03798-PJM Document 8-1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 4 of 6 5 liability, her compliant is barred and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Moreover, Plaintiff pleads two causes of action in his original complaint: (1) request for declaratory judgment and (2) request for permanent injunction. Both counts are barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment count is also barred by the Tax Exception to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

Case 1:10-cv-00950-GK Document 21 Filed 09/10/10 Page 54 of 56 45 such, this case is not brought “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” See 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). CONCLUSION Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

Subject to certain exceptions not applicable here, the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. 7421(a), provides that, “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall Case 1:17-cv-00188-S-LDA Document 8-1 Filed 07/07/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 56 - 4 - be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.” 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). Given that there is no waiver of sovereign immunity permitting Ms. Mamedova’s action, Case 1:17-cv-00188-S-LDA Document 8-1 Filed 07/07/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 57 - 5 - the action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.2 Respectfully submitted, DAVID A. HUBBERT Acting Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division /s/ Karen Wozniak KAREN WOZNIAK Trial Attorney, Tax Division U.S. Department of Justice Post Office Box 55, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Telephone: (202) 307-1927 Facsimile: (202) 514-5238 E-mail: karen.e.wozniak@usdoj.gov 2 Ms. Mamedova claims that she “has no adequate remedy at law to irreparable harm if the funds are not immediately returned and no further levy action is taken.”

First, she 3 There are a number of statutory exceptions set forth in the Anti-Injunction Act, but none of them are applicable here. 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). Case 3:17-cv-00771-AWT Document 15-1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 6 of 11 7 argues that the IRS’s assessment is invalid because the IRS did not “file” a number of forms, including IRS Form 23C,4 IRS Form 4340, and IRS Form 2666.