Opinion ID: 606213
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Judicial Exception

Text: 12 Knight also contends that he was entitled to injunctive relief under the judicial exception to the Act. This contention lacks merit. 13 Under the judicial exception to the Act, injunctive relief is available if the taxpayer can demonstrate that (1) under no circumstances could the government prevail, and (2) the taxpayer will be irreparably harmed if the injunction is not granted. Enochs, 370 U.S. at 7; Elias v. Connett, 908 F.2d 521, 526 (9th Cir.1990). The taxpayer bears the burden of showing that the government cannot ultimately prevail, and the government need only have a good faith basis for its claim to obtain dismissal. Elias, 908 F.2d at 525. 14 Here, Knight failed to establish that under no circumstances could the government prevail. See Enochs, 370 U.S. at 7. We find unpersuasive his sole argument in this regard that the government could not prevail under any circumstances because section 152(e) is unconstitutional. Moreover, Knight has an adequate remedy at law because he can pay the tax and file an action for refund. See 26 U.S.C. § 7422. Finally, the district court correctly found that Knight's claim of financial hardship did not constitute irreparable harm. See Enochs, 370 U.S. at 7; Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 536 (9th Cir.1992) (mere financial hardship does not establish irreparable harm). 15 AFFIRMED.