Opinion ID: 160284
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: We review de novo the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the bar of sovereign immunity.3 The Anti-Injunction Act specifically provides that, “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person.”4 Therefore, in order for the district court to have subject matter jurisdiction over the Bliss claims, those claims must come under an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act. There are certain enumerated exceptions to § 7421(a) listed in the statute. None of these exceptions, however, are applicable to this claim. The tax court agreed, and the IRS made a retroactive abatement of the entire assessment against her. Therefore, John Bliss, alone, is liable for the amounts listed in the second assessment. 3 Williams v. United States, 957 F.2d 742 (10th Cir. 1992). 4 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). -3- Plaintiffs rely on the exception provided by § 6213(a). This exception is inapplicable for it provides only that an assessment cannot be made by the IRS until after the expiration of the 90 day restriction period. In the case at bar, it is undisputed that the assessment was not made until 90 days after the mailing of the notice of deficiency. The Blisses contend that the amount listed in the notice of deficiency for the second assessment was necessarily incorrect because it was based on what they believe to be the incorrect first assessment; therefore, the notice of deficiency was improper. There has been no evidence presented, however, which would support the contention that the IRS’s calculation of the total tax due was erroneous. Rather, the Blisses have demonstrated only that the IRS made an error on the Form 870 waiver of notice. Although the IRS subsequently agreed to abate a portion of the tax liability based on this error, that abatement does not change the fact that plaintiffs received a timely notice of deficiency for the second assessment. Therefore, §6213(a) is inapplicable. Additionally, even if the notice of deficiency was inaccurate, there is no exception to the Anti-Injunction Act dealing with assessment procedures.5 Accordingly, the Bliss claims are barred by the Anti-Injunction Act and were properly dismissed. 5 26 U.S.C. §7421(a) states: “Except as provided in sections 6015(e), 6212(a) and (c), 6213(a), 6225(b), 6246(b), 6331(i), 6672(b), 6694(c), and 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.” None of these remaining exceptions apply to the procedure for calculating the notice of deficiency. -4- The proper procedure to contest the accuracy of the notice of deficiency is to bring a claim before the Tax Court within 90 days of the notice.6 The taxpayers did not pursue this remedy. As a result of this failure, the taxpayers’ remedy now lies in seeking a refund after the taxes are paid in accordance with the assessment.7 For these reasons, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court Henry A. Politz