Opinion ID: 3169959
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: TIA and Comity

Text: Under the TIA, district courts are prohibited from “enjoin[ing], suspend[ing] or restrain[ing] the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1341. Rather than confer jurisdiction, the TIA “limits jurisdiction which might otherwise exist,” and “was intended to prevent taxpayers from using federal courts to raise questions of state or federal law relating to the validity of particular taxes.” Osceola v. Fla. Dep’t of Revenue, 893 F.2d 1231, 1232-33 (11th Cir. 1990). The TIA bars the exercise of federal jurisdiction if these two requirements are met: (1) the relief requested by the plaintiff would enjoin, suspend, or restrain a state tax assessment, and (2) the state affords the plaintiff a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy. Williams v. City of Dothan, Ala., 745 F.2d 1406, 1411 (11th Cir. 1984). The burden is on the plaintiff to show facts sufficient to overcome the TIA’s jurisdictional bar. Amos v. Glynn Cty. Bd. of Tax Assessors, 347 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2003), abrogated on other grounds by Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 125 S. Ct. 1517 (2005). In light of the TIA’s overarching purpose to impede federal court interference with state tax 9 Case: 15-12124 Date Filed: 01/15/2016 Page: 10 of 17 systems, the Act has been construed broadly. A Bonding Co. v. Sunnuck, 629 F.2d 1127, 1133 (5th Cir. 1980).3