26 U.S.C. § 7421

Prohibition of suits to restrain assessment or collection

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 26 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Tax

Except as provided in sections 6015(e), 6212(a) and (c), 6213(a), 6232(c), 6330(e)(1), 6331(i), 6672(c), 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.

(b) Liability of transferee or fiduciaryNo suit shall be maintained in any court for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection (pursuant to the provisions of chapter 71) of—(1) the amount of the liability, at law or in equity, of a transferee of property of a taxpayer in respect of any internal revenue tax, or(2) the amount of the liability of a fiduciary under section 3713(b) of title 31, United States Code, in respect of any such tax.(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 876; Pub. L. 89–719, title I, § 110(c), Nov. 2, 1966, 80 Stat. 1144; Pub. L. 94–455, title XII, § 1204(c)(11), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1699; Pub. L. 95–628, § 9(b)(1), Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3633; Pub. L. 97–258, § 3(f)(13), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1065; Pub. L. 105–34, title XII, §§ 1222(b)(1), 1239(e)(3), title XIV, § 1454(b)(2), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 1019, 1028, 1057; Pub. L. 105–206, title III, § 3201(e)(3), July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 740; Pub. L. 105–277, div. J, title IV, § 4002(c)(1), (f), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–906, 2681–907; Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(7) [title III, §§ 313(b)(2)(B), 319(24)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–642, 2763A–647; Pub. L. 114–74, title XI, § 1101(f)(10), Nov. 2, 2015, 129 Stat. 638; Pub. L. 115–141, div. U, title IV, § 401(a)(324), Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1199.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2018—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 115–141 substituted “Code, in” for “Code in”.

2015—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 114–74 substituted “6232(c)” for “6225(b), 6246(b)”.

2000—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106–554 inserted “6330(e)(1),” after “6246(b),” and substituted “6672(c)” for “6672(b)”.

1998—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–277 substituted “6015(e)” for “6015(d)” and inserted “6331(i),” after “6246(b),”.

Pub. L. 105–206 inserted “6015(d),” after “sections”.

1997—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–34, § 1454(b)(2), substituted “7429(b), and 7436” for “and 7429(b)”.

Pub. L. 105–34, § 1239(e)(3), inserted “6225(b),” after “6213(a),”.

Pub. L. 105–34, § 1222(b)(1), inserted “6246(b),” after “6213(a),”.

1982—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 97–258 substituted “section 3713(b) of title 31, United States Code” for “section 3467 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 192)”.

1978—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–628 inserted references to sections 6672(b) and 6694(c).

1976—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94–455 substituted “7426(a) and (b)(1), and 7429(b)” for “and 7426(a) and (b)(1)”.

1966—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 89–719 inserted reference to section 7426(a), (b)(1), and “by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2015 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–74 applicable to returns filed for partnership taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2017, with certain exceptions, see section 1101(g) of Pub. L. 114–74, set out as an Effective Date note under section 6221 of this title.

Effective Date of 1998 Amendments

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–277 effective as if included in the provision of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105–206, to which such amendment relates, see section 4002(k) of Pub. L. 105–277, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–206 applicable to any liability for tax arising after July 22, 1998, and any liability for tax arising on or before such date but remaining unpaid as of such date, see section 3201(g)(1) of Pub. L. 105–206, set out as a note under section 6015 of this title.

Effective Date of 1997 Amendment

Amendment by section 1222(b)(1) of Pub. L. 105–34 applicable to partnership taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1997, see section 1226 of Pub. L. 105–34, as amended, set out as a note under section 6011 of this title.

Amendment by section 1239(e)(3) of Pub. L. 105–34 applicable to partnership taxable years ending after Aug. 5, 1997, see section 1239(f) of Pub. L. 105–34, set out as a note under section 6501 of this title.

Amendment by section 1454(b)(2) of Pub. L. 105–34, effective Aug. 5, 1997, see section 1454(c) of Pub. L. 105–34, set out as a note under section 6511 of this title.

Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–628 applicable with respect to penalties assessed more than 60 days after Nov. 10, 1978, see section 9(c) of Pub. L. 95–628, set out as a note under section 6672 of this title.

Effective Date of 1976 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 94–455 applicable with respect to action taken under section 6851, 6861, or 6862 of this title where notice and demand takes place after Feb. 28, 1977, see section 1204(d) of Pub. L. 94–455, as amended, set out as a note under section 6851 of this title.

Effective Date of 1966 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 89–719 applicable after Nov. 2, 1966, regardless of when title or lien of United States arose or when lien or interest of another person was acquired, with certain exceptions, see section 114(a)–(c) of Pub. L. 89–719, set out as a note under section 6323 of this title.

Prohibition on Requests to Taxpayers To Give Up Rights To Bring Actions

Pub. L. 105–206, title III, § 3468, July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 770, provided that:“(a)Prohibition.—No officer or employee of the United States may request a taxpayer to waive the taxpayer’s right to bring a civil action against the United States or any officer or employee of the United States for any action taken in connection with the internal revenue laws.“(b)Exceptions.—Subsection (a) shall not apply in any case where—“(1) a taxpayer waives the right described in subsection (a) knowingly and voluntarily; or“(2) the request by the officer or employee is made in person and the taxpayer’s attorney or other federally authorized tax practitioner (within the meaning of section 7525(a)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) is present, or the request is made in writing to the taxpayer’s attorney or other representative.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,403 cases (123 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: Hibbs v. Winn

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hibbs v. Winn (2004) scotus · cites it 10× “In composing the TIA's text, Congress drew particularly on an 1867 measure, sometimes called the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), which bars "any court" from entertaining a suit brought "for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any [federal] tax.”

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) scotus · cites it 7× “The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be main- tained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421 (a), so that those subject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund.”

Cic Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv. (2019) ca6 · cites it 21× “Defendants asserted that Plaintiff’s complaint was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421 (a) and the tax exception to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.”

Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius (2013) ca10 · cites it 10× “See 26 U.S.C. § 7421 . Although the plaintiffs and the government agree that the AIA does not apply here, “subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court’s power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or waived.”

South Carolina v. Regan (1984) scotus · cites it 14× “The Secretary objects to the motion on the ground that the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U. S. C. § 7421 (a), bars this action [2] and, alternatively, that the Court should exercise its discretion to deny leave to file.”

Lindsey v. United States (2006) dcd · cites it 9× “Similarly, the defendant’s assertion that the Court lacks the authority under the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421 , to grant the injunctive relief requested by the plaintiffs presents a challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction.”

Seven-Sky v. Holder (2011) cadc · cites it 10× “" 26 U.S.C. § 7421 (a). The Supreme Court has strictly interpreted that Act as a firm bulwark against premature judicial interference with tax assessment and collection.”

Commissioner v. Shapiro (1976) scotus · cites it 6× “This case presents questions relating to the scope of the Internal Revenue Code's Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U. S. C. § 7421 (a), [1] in the context of a summary seizure of a taxpayer's assets pursuant to a jeopardy assessment.”

Florida Bankers Ass'n v. United States Department of Treasury (2015) cadc · cites it 10× “” 26 U.S.C. § 7421 (a). Among other things, the Act generally bars pre- enforcement challenges to certain tax statutes and regulations.”

Chamber of Commerce of United States v. Edmondson (2010) ca10 · cites it 4× “It states: 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), 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…”

Thomas More Law Center v. Obama (2011) ca6 · cites it 6× “26 U.S.C. § 7421 (a); see Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.”

Steven Hotze v. Sylvia Burwell, Secretary H (2015) ca5 · cites it 7× “Instead, we conclude that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, because Dr. Hotze failed adequately to allege an injury that would give him standing to challenge the individual mandate and because Braidwood’s challenge to the employer…”

Show all 1,403 citing cases →

— 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) — 15 cases

Larson v. United States (2018) ca2

Jules Hairstylists of Maryland, Inc. v. United States (1967) mdd

International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. Alexander (1975) ded

Alphonzo Williams v. Earl R. Wiseman, District Director of Internal Revenue (1964) ca10

Eric H. v. Dillon (1963) nysd

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.