Opinion ID: 574705
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: leroy knies' claims

Text: 12 Leroy Knies joined this suit challenging the validity of the original assessment of a tax deficiency. He claims that because the assessment was illegal, the government lacks the authority to levy on any of his property. In the complaint, Mr. Knies cites to several general jurisdiction statutes which he claims confers jurisdiction upon the district court. 6 We agree with the district court that Mr. Knies has failed to establish federal court jurisdiction. Therefore, his claims must be dismissed. 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1) provides that the pleadings must set forth a short plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends. Under the principles of sovereign immunity, the United States, as sovereign, 'is immune from suit, save as it consents to be sued ... and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit.'  United States v. Dalm, 110, S.Ct. 1361 1368 (1990); see also Enochs v. Williams, 370 U.S. 1 (1962). The terms of the United States' consent to suit are found in statutes other than the general jurisdictional statutes. 14 Mr. Knies seeks to enjoin the enforcement of the levies claiming that the original assessment was procedurally deficient. As a preliminary matter, we note that Mr. Knies does not have standing under § 7426 for wrongful levy because the language of that statute expressly prohibits suits by taxpayers. Further, as a general matter, suits seeking to enjoin the assessment or collection of a tax are prohibited by § 7421, also known as the Anti-Injunction Act. This statute lists several statutory exceptions to the general rule. 7 Mr. Knies has not alleged any facts to demonstrate that he falls within one of the enumerated exceptions. 15 Failing to have overcome the bar of the Anti-Injunction Act, Mr. Knies' only recourse was to file a suit for refund under § 7422. Before a suit can be brought in the district court, an administrative claim for refund must be filed with the Secretary. See § 7422(a). A timely, sufficient claim for refund is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a refund suit. Goulding v. United States, 929 F.2d 329, 331 (7th Cir.1991) (quoting Martin v. United States, 833 F.2d 655, 658-59 (7th Cir.1987)). Nothing in the pleadings or the record suggests that Mr. Knies filed an administrative claim for refund. Therefore, even if we were to construe Mr. Knies' claims as a suit for refund, he has still failed to invoke the jurisdiction of the district court.