Toward Doctrinal Stability: Addressing Judicial Discontent in the Tax Anti-Injunction Act

• In Event: Procedure, Administration, and Organization

Abstract

The Tax Anti-Injunction Act (TAIA) strips federal district courts of jurisdiction over suits that would restrain tax assessment or collection unless the tax has been paid in full.

Scholars lament the courts’ inconsistent application of the Act, but leave unexplained the deeper reasons why such doctrinal confusion exists. This Article argues the root of the problem is twofold. First, there is judicial discomfort with the Act’s rigidity. It impedes judges' ability to grant relief even if applying the Act would run counter to the Act’s purpose, or would shield certain taxes from judicial review. A tax on corporate mergers, for instance, is unchallengeable unless the merger is completed and the tax paid––a risk few corporations will take.

This discontent has thus translated to confusion after the Supreme Court, in a trio of cases, carved out a narrow statutory exception for what this Article terms “Tax Code Mandates:” tax provisions that compel behavior, such as reporting requirements or the Obamacare individual mandate. Subsequent holdings such as Chamber of Commerce v. IRS, Harper v. Rettig, and Harward v. Austin misstate the exception––perhaps opportunistically––to apply the exception to a range of taxes, avoiding outcomes they believe are unjust.

To restore coherence to TAIA doctrine, this Article proposes two reforms: adopting the Tax Code Mandate framework set forth herein to clarify the scope of the exception, and broadening existing equitable exceptions to better align with the statute’s purpose. Absent reform, courts will likely continue to contort doctrine to reach their desired outcomes.

Author

• Audrey Cheng, Harvard Law School