Opinion ID: 3014088
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: federal courts from exercising subject-

Text: matter jurisdiction over a challenge to a Appellants, Herbert S. Gass, Jr., state tax system. Appellants responded John and Diane Zitelli, Jeff and Lynn that although the Tax Injunction Act bars Corsello, Michael Leahy, Domenic and federal jurisdiction over challenges to a A n n a D i P i l a to , a n d R o b i n h i l l state’s assessment, levy, or collection of Development Company, appealed their property taxes, it does not bar challenges real property assessments in 2001 and to a state’s post-payment appeals 2002 to the Board pursuant to the procedures. procedures set out in Section 207.01, et seq. of the Administrative Code of The District Court referred the Allegheny County. The Board’s hearing motion to dismiss to Magistrate Judge Ila officers held appeals hearings for each of the Appellants and made recommendations 1 to the Board for final resolution of their The named Board members are Kevin tax liability. Appellants allege that the McKeegin, Patricia McCullough, Jerry Board considered ex parte evidence Speer, James Skinzer, Deborah Baron, and Frederick Valencenti. 2 Jeanne Sensenich for a Report and where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy Recommendation (R&R). Magistrate may be had in the courts of such State.” Judge Sensenich issued a thorough, well- 28 U.S.C. § 1341. Although the express reasoned report recommending that the language of the Tax Injunction Act only District Court grant the Board’s motion to refers to injunctive actions, the Supreme dismiss for lack of subject-matter Court has held that the Tax Injunction Act jurisdiction. She reasoned that if a federal also prohibits federal courts from issuing court could award damages or declare a declaratory judgments holding state tax state tax system unconstitutional, it could laws unconstitutional. California v. Grace halt the proper functioning of state Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393, 408 government in a manner that was (1982). antithetical to principles of comity. Judge
Sensenich thus rejected Appellants’ asserted distinction between the taxing Appellants’ first argument is that power and the appeals process. Finally, the Tax Injunction Act does not apply Judge Sensenich found that, in light of because they have not asked the District recent additions to Pennsylvania law, Court to “enjoin, suspend or restrain the Pennsylvania’s courts provide a “plain, assessment, levy or collection of any tax.” speedy, and efficient” remedy through the Appellants’ Br. at 10 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § process for appeal of tax assessments. The 1341). Appellants argue that they only District Court adopted the R&R as the challenge the post-collection appeals opinion of the court and granted the process, which does not implicate the Board’s motion to dismiss for lack of Commonwealth’s ability to assess, levy, or jurisdiction. collect taxes as described in the text of the Tax Injunction Act.2 On appeal, Appellants argue that 1) the Tax Injunction Act does not apply to As noted above, Judge Sensenich their challenge to Pennsylvania’s post- rejected their attempt to distinguish their payment appeals process; 2) even if the challenge from the type of challenge Tax Injunction Act applies to their case, covered by the Act. She concluded that: the federal courts still have jurisdiction [appellants] ultimately [] because Appellants lack a plain, speedy challenge the methods used and efficient remedy at state law; and/or 3) by the Board to assess the Tax Injunction Act is unconstitutional.