Opinion ID: 3063420
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: We review de novo the district court’s conclusions as to subject matter jurisdiction. Popowski v. Parrot, 461 F.3d 1367, 1372 (11th Cir. 2006). Article III, § 2, of the United States Constitution provides the federal courts’ judicial power extends to all Cases . . . arising under . . . the Laws of the United 1 Both parties agree on appeal that Goldston was not collaterally estopped from challenging the merits of his 1991 tax liabilities. To the extent Goldston argues the Government was estopped from doing so, we decline to consider his argument because such a determination was not the basis of the district court’s order. As to res judicata, we have noted that a prior criminal restitution order has never been applied as res judicata against a subsequent damages action. United States v. Barnette, 10 F.3d 1553, 1562 (11th Cir. 1994). Therefore, we find no merit to Goldston's argument that the present case was barred by res judicata. 2 States, and to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1340, the district court has original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under Congressional acts which provide for internal revenue. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1345, the district court has original jurisdiction over civil actions and proceedings commenced by the United States or its agencies. Section 7402(a) of the IRC, codified at 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a), grants the district court jurisdiction to render such judgments and decrees as may be necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws. We have noted [t]he language of § 7402(a) encompasses a broad range of powers necessary to compel compliance with the tax laws. United States v. Ernst & Whinney, 735 F.2d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 1984). We have also noted, because the Tax Court possesses no statutory authority to issue orders in aid of IRS collection activities[,] . . . . the Government must bring a suit for collection of tax in federal district court . . . if it wants judicial assistance in recovering a tax deficiency. Roberts v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 175 F.3d 889, 896 (11th Cir. 1999). The present case involves federal income tax laws, and the United States was a party, so the district court had jurisdiction under Article III, 28 U.S.C. § 1340, and 28 U.S.C. § 1345. Given the court's ability to render judgments as necessary to enforce internal revenue laws, and its broad power to compel 3 compliance with the tax laws, the district court also had jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a).