Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02170/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02170-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Co~rt ~f Appeals "feoth C1ro11t 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JOHNS. WILLIAMSON, doing business as 

Williamson Water Works, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)(D.C. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

APR 19 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-2170 

No. CIV 90-0236 JC) 

(D. N.M.) 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable John L. 

District Court for 

designation. 

Kane, Senior District Judge, United States 

the District of Colorado, sitting by 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-2170 Document: 010110034256 Date Filed: 04/19/1991 Page: 1 
Defendant appeals the district court's dismissal of his 

motions seeking the return of property seized by the Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS) in satisfaction of defendant's outstanding 

federal income tax liabilities. Underlying defendant's claims for 

the return of his property is his assertion that the IRS's seizure 

of the property, pursuant to the execution of a writ of entry onto 

defendant's business premises, violated the fourth amendment. 

26 u.s.c. S 742l(a) provides that_, with several exceptions 

not relevant here, "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." This provision barred 

defendant's claims for the return of his property. See, e.g., 

Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1442 (10th Cir. 1990); 

Lowrie v. United States, 824 F.2d 827, 830-31 (10th Cir. 1987). 

This is so even though defendant's claims alleged constitutional 

deprivations. See Alexander v. "Americans United" Inc., 416 U.S. 

752, 759 (1974)("the constitutional nature of a taxpayer's claim 

is of no consequence under the Anti-Injunction Act"); 

also Lowrie, 824 F.2d at 830. 

A judicial exception to section 7421(a) permits injunctive 

relief if the taxpayer demonstrates that 1) under no circumstances 

can the government establish its claim to the asserted tax and 2) 

irreparable injury would otherwise occur. Ls.:., Overton v. United 

States, 925 F.2d 1282, 1284 (10th Cir. 199l)(citing Lonsdale, 919 

F.2d at 1442); Lowrie, 824 F.2d at 830. Defendant has failed to 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-2170 Document: 010110034256 Date Filed: 04/19/1991 Page: 2 
establish that this case fits within this limited exception to the 

Anti-Injunction Act. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. Defendant's request for 

sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 is DENIED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-2170 Document: 010110034256 Date Filed: 04/19/1991 Page: 3