Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines (1997)

Airlines Co., 110 F.3d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1997), and the specter of lawsuits from overpaying customers, see In re Air Transp.

The “express provision of one method of enforcing a substantive rule suggests that Congress intended to preclude others.” Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 290 (2001); Sigmon, 110 F.3d at 1206 (holding the “existence of [an] administrative scheme of enforcement is strong evidence that Congress intended the administrative remedy to be exclusive” (quotations omitted)).

See Brennan v. Southwest Airlines Co., 134 F.3d 1405, 1409 , amended without substantive change, 140 F.3d 849 (9th Cir.1998) (in collecting excise tax from passengers, airlines act as agents for the IRS); Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines Co., 110 F.3d 1200, 1203 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 522 U.S. 950 , 118 S.Ct. 370 , 139 L.Ed.2d 288 (1997) (citing 26 U.S.C. § 4291 and Kaucky v. Southwest Airlines Co., 109 F.3d 349 (7th Cir.1997) (airlines act as government agents in collecting …

We later adopted Kaucky’s reasoning on similar facts, holding that “Southwest acts as the government’s agent in collecting airline ticket excise taxes.” Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines Co., 110 F.3d 1200, 1203 (5th Cir. 1997).

Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines Co., 110 F.3d 1200, 1202 (5th Cir.1997); Kidd v. Southwest Airlines Co., 891 F.2d 540, 547 (5th Cir.1990).

Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines Co., 110 F.3d 1200, 1204 (5th Cir. 1997).8 For her part, Umland calls the alleged withholding of an additional 7.65 percent an illegal assessment of the employer FICA tax on the wrong people.

Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines Co., 110 F.3d 1200, 1204 (5th Cir.1997). 8 *68 For her part, Umland calls the alleged withholding of an additional 7.65 percent an illegal assessment of the employer FICA tax on the wrong people.

Airlines Co., 110 F.3d 1200, 1203 (5th Cir. 1997); Kaucky v. Sw.

See Brennan v. Southwest Airlines Co., 134 F.3d 1405, 1409 , amended without substantive change, 140 F.3d 849 (9th Cir.1998) (in collecting excise tax from passengers, airlines act as agents for the IRS); Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines Co., 110 F.3d 1200, 1203 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 950 , 118 S.Ct. 370 , 139 L.Ed.2d 288 (1997) (citing 26 U.S.C. § 4291 and Kaucky v. Southwest Airlines Co., 109 F.3d 349 (7th Cir.1997) (airlines act as government agents in collecting …

Section 7422 of the Internal Revenue Code provides the exclusive remedy for the erroneous or illegal collection of taxes thus preempting recoupment claims against a private entity. 26 U.S.C. § 7422 (a), -(f)(1); *26 Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines, Co., 110 F.3d 1200, 1204 (5th Cir.1997). 2.

See American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 , 228 n.4, 115 S.Ct. 817 , 823 n.4 (1995) (citing precursor to current § 41712 for a similar proposition); Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines Co., 110 F.3d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing § 41713 for same proposition, but context makes clear that § 41712 was contemplated).

See American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 , 228 n. 4, 115 S.Ct. 817 , 823 n. 4, 130 L.Ed.2d 715 (1995) (citing precursor to current § 41712 for a similar proposition); Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines Co., 110 F.3d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir.1997) (citing § 41713 for same proposition, but context makes clear that § 41712 was contemplated).

Under Section 7422(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 7422 (a), “[n]o suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected . . . or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary . . . .” Section 7422(f)(1) provides that “[a] suit or proceeding refe…

In Sigmon, supra, 110 F.3d at 1202-03, we cited this language favorably but without discussion.

See Brennan, 134 F.3d at 1408, 1412 (stating that the plaintiffs alleged “unlawful business practices and breach of contract” and holding that “where the plaintiff sues to recover a sum that was collected as a tax, the plaintiff has sued for a tax refund”); Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines Co., 110 F.3d 1200, 1202 (5th Cir.) (recalling Sigmon’s allegations of fraud and conversion and stating that a private cause of action for recovery of the excise tax against the airline is not…

See 26 U.S.C. § 7422 (a); Sigmon, supra, at 1203; Kaucky, supra, at 350.

Airlines Co., 110 F.3d 1200, 1204 (5th Cir. 1997) (“Although the collection may ultimately have been erroneous, the Internal Revenue Code provides the exclusive remedy for the erroneous or illegal collection of taxes[.]”); Bright v. Bechtel Petroleum, Inc., 780 F.2d 766, 770 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[S]uits by employees against employers for tax withheld are statutorily barred.” (internal quotation omitted)).

Tex. 2023)). 39 Not only does the NSA decline to incorporate FAA Section 9, but it also lacks “any fee-shifting provisions or any other language suggesting that Congress intended to confer a private cause of action to healthcare providers.” Guardian Flight LLC, 735 F. Supp. 3d at 750.40 In the Fifth Circuit’s affirmance of the District Court decision, the court noted the heavy burden placed upon plaintiffs to “overcome [the] presumption” that Congress “did not intend to crea…

Airlines Co., 110 F.3d 1200, 1203 (5th Cir. 1997).

The issue is whether Southwest had a color-able basis to collect the tax at the time.” 110 F.3d at 1204 (emphasis added).

The Brennan court recognized that “the IRC provides the exclusive remedy in tax refund suits and thus preempts state-law claims that seek tax refunds.” Id. at 1409 (citing Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines Co., 110 F.3d 1200, 1204 (5th Cir.1997)).

See 26 U.S.C.S. §§ 4261 (d), 7422(a), (f)(1) (Lexis 2000); Brennan v. Southwest Airlines Co., 134 F.3d 1405, 1412 (9th Cir. 1998); Sigmon _v. Southwest Airlines Co., 110 F.3d 1200, 1203 (Sth Cir. 1997); Kaucky v. Southwest Airlines Co., 109 F.3d 349, 353 (7th Cir. 1997); see also Serna v. H.E.

See, e.g., Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 , 78- *759 79, 95 S.Ct. 2080 , 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975); Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines Co., 110 F.3d 1200, 1205 (5th Cir.1997).

Brennan, 134 F.3d at 1408 (noting that defendants “apparently did not pocket any of the money for their own benefit”); Sigmon, 110 F.3d at 1204 (noting that the airline did not “pocket the money for itself’); Kaucky, 109 F.3d at 350-51 (assuming that the airline “remitted the money it collected” to the IRS).

Exercising supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim is within the discretion of a federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a), (c)(3); Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines Co., 110 F.3d 1200, 1203 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 370 , 139 L.Ed.2d 268 (1997).

In Sigmon, supra, 110 F.3d at 1202-03, we cited this language favorably but without discussion.

See Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines Co., 110 F.3d 1200, 1204 (5th Cir.1997) (stating on similar facts that "[t]he exclusive remedy provided by the Internal Revenue Code ... preempts ... state-law claims against a private entity"), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 370 , 139 L.Ed.2d 268 (1997); Kent v. Northern Cal. Regional Office of Am.

See Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines Co., 110 F.3d 1200, 1204 (5th Cir.1997) (stating on similar facts that “[t]he exclusive remedy provided by the Internal Revenue Code ... preempts ... state-law claims against a private entity”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 370 , 139 L.Ed.2d 268 (1997); Kent v. Northern Cal. Regional Office of Am.

See, e.g., Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines Co., 110 F.3d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir.1997).

See generally Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines Co., 110 F.3d 1200, 1203 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 950 , 118 S.Ct. 370 , 139 L.Ed.2d 288 (1997): “The Internal Revenue Code governs tax refund suits.