Opinion
Civil Action No. 99-1217 (NHP).
September 17, 1999.
Mr. John A. Kasharian, Stanhope, N.J., Plaintiff Pro Se.
Susan C. Cassell, Assistant, United States Attorney, FAITH S. HOCHBERG, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newark, N.J. Attorneys for Defendant.
Dayna K. Olson, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Attorneys for Defendant.
THE ORIGINAL OF THIS LETTER ORDER IS ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT
Dear Litigants:
This matter comes before the court on the motion by defendant Internal Revenue Service to dismiss the Complaint of plaintiff John A. Kasharian. This matter was resolved without oral argument For the reasons stated herein, the motion by defendant Internal Revenue Service to Service to dismiss is GRANTED and plaintiff John Kasharian's Complaint ismplaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This case is CLOSED.
DISCUSSION
On March 18, 1999, plaintiff John Kasharian ("plaintiff") filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey wherein plaintiff requests this Court to "pardon," presumably via injunction, $30,000.00 worth of taxes plus interest imposed upon him for the years 1992 through 1997.Defendant United States of America, improperly named as the Internal Revenue Service, filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
The Anti-Injunction Act provides, in pertinent part:
(A) Tax Except as provided in sections 6015(e), 6212(a), 6225(b), 6246(b), 6331(i), 6672(b), 6694(c), 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.26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) (West 1999).
The purpose of § 7421(a) is to "withdraw jurisdiction from the state and federal courts to entertain suits seeking injunctions prohibiting the collection of federal taxes." Enochs v. Williams Packing Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 5 (1962). See also Galanti v. United States, 244 F. Supp. 528, 530 (D.N.J. 1965); Wuerl v. International Life Science Church, 758 F. Supp. 1084, 1087 (W.D.Pa. 1991). "The Anti-Injunction Act protects the United States' need to collect taxes expeditiously, and limits disputes to suits for refunds." Malkin v. United States, 3 F. Supp.2d 493, 498 (D.N.J. 1998).
A taxpayer may circumvent § 7421(a) only if two exceptions, other than those set forth in the statute, are met: "(1) it is clearly shown that under no circumstances could the United States ultimately prevail, and (2) equity jurisdiction exits." Id. (citingEnochs v. Williams Packing Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 5 (1962)). If the United States has a chance of winning the case, a district court is obligated to dismiss the taxpayer's case because the district court lacks jurisdiction. See id. Furthermore, in order to bring the taxpayer's case within the equity exception, there must exist extraordinary circumstances justifying the district court's exercise of jurisdiction over the matter. Ruby v. Mayer, at al., 194 F. Supp. 594 (D.N.J. 1961) (citingMiller v. Standard Nut Margarine Co., 284 U.S. 498, 509 (1932)). Notably, the burden is on the taxpayer to prove the applicability of both exceptions. See id.
None of the exceptions set forth in the statute are applicable to the case at bar.
In this matter, plaintiff has neither demonstrated that the United States Government could not prevail nor that this is a case where equity jurisdiction exists. Plaintiff does not contest the validity of the amount of taxes levied against him. Instead, he simply pleads with this Court to forgive the amount of taxes owed in order for him to "start a new beginning." This Court is simply without jurisdiction to address plaintiff's case. Accordingly, the motion by defendant Internal Revenue Service to dismiss is GRANTED and plaintiff John Kasharian's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This case is CLOSED.
SO ORDERED.