Document: 416 U.S. 725 94 S.Ct. 2038 40 L.Ed.2d 496 BOB JONES UNIVERSITY, Petitioner,v.William E. SIMON, Secretary of Treasury, et al. No. 72—1470. Argued Jan. 7, 1974. Decided May 15, Syllabus Petitioner, a private university, was notified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), pursuant to newly announced policy denying tax-exempt status for schools with racially discriminatory admissions policies, that it going revoke ruling letter declaring petitioner qualified under § 501(c)(3) Code 1954 (Code). Petitioner sued injunctive relief prevent revocation, alleging irreparable injury in form income tax liability and loss contributions claiming revocation would violate petitioner's rights free exercise religion, association, due process equal protection laws. The District Court granted despite 7421(a) Code, which provides 'no suit purpose restraining assessment or collection any shall be maintained court.' Appeals reversed, holding 7421(a), as construed Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 1, 82 1125, 8 292, foreclosed relief. Under decision pre-enforcement injunction against may only if (1) 'it is clear no circumstances could Government ultimately prevail . .' (2) 'if equity jurisdiction otherwise exists.' Held: 1. one 'for tax' within meaning 7421(a). Pp. 738—742. (a) Petitioner's allegation subject 'substantial' demonstrates primary IRS from assessing collecting taxes; but even resulted, still restrain federal social security unemployment taxes, well taxes donors. 738—739. (b) has not shown contemplated its based on IRS's good-faith effort enforce technical requirements Code. 739—741. 2. contention judicially created exceptions other than test without merit. That constitutes an all-encompassing reading rejected contention, relied upon petitioner, alone sufficient lift statutory bar. 742—746. 3. Denying standards Packing, supra, will not, because alleged pending resort alternative remedies, deny law, since this case where aggrieved party access at all judicial review. review procedures are available constitutionally adequate, though involving serious delay. 746—748. 4. met contentions sufficiently debatable foreclose notion 'under prevail.' 748—750. 472 F.2d 903 476 259, affirmed. J. D. Todd, Jr., Greenville, S.C., petitioner. Scott P. Crampton, Washington, D.C., respondents. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 This Alexander 'Americans United' Inc., 752, 2053, 518, involve application Anti-Injunction Act, (the Code), 26 U.S.C. ruling-letter program Service) organizations 501(c)(3), 501(c)(3). question presented whether, prior tax, court enjoin revoking qualifies withdrawing advance assurance donors constitute charitable deductions 170(c)(2), 170(c) (2). We hold not. 2 * Section 501(a) exempts described latter provision encompasses: 3 'Corporations, community chest, fund, foundation, organized operated exclusively religious, charitable, scientific, testing public safety, literary, educational purposes, prevention cruelty children animals, part net earnings inures benefit shareholder individual, substantial activities carrying propaganda, attempting, influence legislation, does participate in, intervene (including publishing distributing statements), political campaign behalf candidate office.' 4 also exempt (FICA) virtue 3121(b)(8)(B), (FUTA) 3306(c)(8), 3306(c)(8). Donations deductible 170(c)(2).1 5 As practical matter, organization hoping solicit tax-deductible rely solely compliance language §§ 170(c)(2). must obtain Service, Rev.Procs. 72—3 72—4, 1972—1 Cum.Bull. 698, 706, Receipt such leads, ordinary case, inclusion Service's periodically undated Publication 78, 'Cumulative List Organizations 1954' Cumulative List). In essence, official roster organizations: 'The listing List) signifies received determination stating provided section 170 Code.' Rev.Proc. 72 39, 1972—2 818. An organization's assures potential qualify 6 that, narrowly limited exceptions, donor so long beneficiaries his largesse maintain their listing, regardless actual status.2 For reason, appearance prerequisite successful fund raising most organizations. Many contributors simply make donations appear List.3 7 Because importance List, consequent removal likely result damage organization.4 Revocation threatens flow contributions, subjects affected FICA FUTA and, assuming taxable another subsection 501, incoem taxes.5 Upon attempted litigate legality action petitioning Tax notice deficiency. See 6212 6213, 6213. Or, following denial refund bring district Claims. 7422, 7422; 28 1346(a)(1) 1491. Finally, challenge deduction Presumably 'friendly donor' able attack status. But these postrevocation avenues take time, during certain lose those whose gifts contingent entitlement Accordingly, threatened powerful incentive taking first instance. pressures operating facing seek proposed conflict directly congressional prohibition suits. force continuously enactment 1867, now pertinent ..'6 preventing necessarily preclude FICA, FUTA, possibly organization, 170(c)(2) seeking falls squarely literal scope Act.7 9 clash between Act desire block been resolved cases. E.g., Crenshaw County Private School Foundation Connally, 474 1185 (CA5 1973), pet. cert. 73—170; National Council Facts Overpopulation Caplin, 224 F.Supp. 313 (DC 1963); Israelite House David Holden, 14 701 (WD Mich. 1926).8 see McGlotten 338 448 1972) (three-judge court). Cf. Green 330 1150 (DC), aff'd per curiam sub nom. Coit Green, 404 997, 92 564, 30 550 (1971). 10 prsent Fourth Circuit followed majority view. Bob Jones University 903, petition rehearing denied, 259 (1973). light contrary reached Columbia Inc. Walters, 155 U.S.App.D.C. 284, 477 1169 (1973), rev'd we University's certiorari, 414 817, 116, 38 49 II 11 refers itself 'the world's unusual university.' Founded 1927 located South Carolina, devoted teaching propagation fundamentalist religious beliefs. All classes commence close prayer, courses religion compulsory. Students faculty screened adherence precepts expelled dismissed lack allegiance them. One beliefs God intended segregation races Scriptures forbid interracial marriage. refuses admit Negroes students. On pain expulsion students prohibited dating, believes impossible absent exclusion Negroes. 12 1942, issued 101(6) 1939, predecessor 1970, however, longer allow maintaining policies treat deductible. Rev.Rul. 71—447, 1971—2, 230. requested proof nondiscriminatory warned letters reviewed information provided. At end advised did Negroes, September 1971, further stated had intention altering policy. Commissioner therefore instructed Director administrative leading letter. 13 brought proceedings halt filing United States Carolina preliminary permanent threatening contributions. asserted outside lawful authority motion dismiss jurisdiction, preliminarily enjoined deductibility made 341 277 judge dissenting. reh. den., held barred interpreted 292 (1962). III 15 apparently recorded legislative history,9 scarcely more explicit—'no principal Government's need assess collect expeditiously possible minimum preenforcement interference, 'and require legal right disputed sums determined refund.' S.Ct., 1129. also, e.g., State Railroad Cases, 575, 613—614, 23 L.Ed. 663 (1876). Cheatham States, 85, 88—89, 561 identified 'a collateral objective collector litigation U.S., 7—8, 16 furtherance goals, recent gave almost effect. employer sought were owed destroy business. unanimously Act. Only presence two factors terms avoided: first, injury, essential case; second, certainty success merits. Id., 6—7, 1128—1129. issue ..' And basis time suit. 'Only then apparent liberal view law facts, cannot establish claim, maintained.' Ibid. 17 Perhaps recognition stringent nature standard implications makes little argue can meet test. Rather, asserts properly construed, applicable, controlling rejection both work law. find arguments unpersuasive. 18 First, contends inapplicable theory, compel refrain depriving deductibility. describes goal maintenance obstruction revenue. 19 complaint supporting documents filed belie support claim petitioenr allowed carry out action. App. 6. buttressed sworn affidavits three-quarters million dollars year excess half stressing detrimental effect have capacity operate institution, personnel, continue expansion plans. 10—11, 43—44. These allegations leave doubt lawsuit 20 recognize assertions owe should revoked open debate, they failure into account depreciation plant equipment. Even shown, revoked, liable taxes. speaks 'any tax'; differentiate See, supra. Moreover, seeks donors—to provide recognized deductible, thereby reducing liability. Although regard lower itself, nonetheless controlling.10 Thus implications, purposes 21 actions do represent protect revenues attempt regulate universities. line argument, AntiInjunction said truly disagree. 22 bases present position segregative interpretation Code.11 There evidence laws, indicating whether correct, say unrelated revenues. applicable. attribution non-tax-related motives ignores fact independent argument fails give appropriate weight Bailey George, 16, 42 419, 66 816 (1922). blocked Child Labor Tax, although challenged regulatory measure beyond taxing power Congress. Singificantly, George same day Drexel Furniture 20, 449, 817 (1922), tax-refund struck down Law unconstitutional grounds taxpayer raise prematurely George.12 argues when passed 1867 Congress foreseen something sophisticated comparatively program13 special proves too much, foreseen, example, F.I.C. example prohibitory command indisputably applies. through years repeatedly re-enacted Act14 times obviously aware increasing complexity system.15 B 24 next contends, precedents, circumstances' Packing. Court's unanimous indicates meant capstone construction It spells cyclical pattern plain periods uncertainty caused departure meaning, turn rediscovery Act's purpose. 25 During century existence, force, character it, plaintiff. 663; Snyder Marks, 109 189, 157, 27 901 (1883); Pacific Steam Whaling Co. 187 447, 154, 47 253 (1903); Dodge Osborn, 240 118, 36 275, 60 557 (1916); (1922).16 Occasionally, noted dictum unspecified extraordinary exceptional might justify 122, 276; 419. 1922, seized dicta permitted suits statutes viewed penalties adjuncts criminal Hill Wallace, 44, 453, 822 (1922); Lipke Lederer, 557, 549, 1061 Regal Drug Corp. Wardell, 260 386, 43 152, 67 318 Shortly thereafter, Hill, Lipke, narrow challenges revenueraising statutes. Graham Du Pont, 262 234, 567, 965 (1923).17 Thus, produced prompt correction course. 1930's decided Miller Standard Nut Margarine 284 498, 52 260, 76 422 (1932), Allen Regents System Georgia, 304 439, 58 980, 1448 (1938), cases heavily set forth new definition test, Regents. merely 'declaratory principle' passage usually, always, disavows interference collection; thus, 'as near harmony (equity doctrine) reasons rests.' 509, 263. Through interpretation, concept reduced traditional equitable issuance injunction. significant deviation precedent referred commentator tribute tenacity American taxpayer' 'little short phenomenal.'18 Read literally, effectively repealed requiring nothing doctrine demanded before passage. incongruity escaped notice.19 undoubtedly led reexamination second undertaken rehabilitate debilitating departures explicit language. switched focus showing degree harm plaintiff requirement established plainly basis. essence read instance chance explicitly evaded 'merely cause ruination taxpayer's enterprise.' 6, Yet turns, last analysis, great harm. consideration reject reason finding controlling. factor, matter construction, meaningful stopping point Acceptance revive evisceration inherent Nut. C 29 Assuming, arguendo, applicability forcing authorities suffer inadequacies remedies hand similar nearly ago,20 compelling then. Were true, our conclusion different. If, complaint, withdrawal status, accordance prescribed Alternatively, pay or, absence, installment exhaust internal procedures, refund. offer full, albeit delayed, opportunity Christian Echoes Ministry, 470 849 (CA10 1972), 864, 41, 84 (1973); Center Corporate Responsibility, Shultz, 368 863 1973).21 31 best devised. They problems delay, impaired some perhaps terminated. But, notes, delay inevitable consequence disputes challenging susceptible instant resolution litigation. restriction postenforcement place precarious financial position, rise level constitutional infirmities, governmental interests protecting administration system premature 561; 663, opportunities available.22 IV 32 Since governs remaining case. Without deciding merits, think First Amendment, process, err deprived sought. 33 blocks suit, unaware imposed especially harsh regime A former sharply criticized applicable organizations.23 bureaucratic control practically speaking, placed over abuse, how conscientiously responsibilities. Specific treatment not-for-profit them merit consideration. Congress, body weigh relevant, policy-laden considerations, harshness consequences unjustified number comparability others program, burden changed. 34 judgment 35 ordered. Affirmed. 37 DOUGLAS took BLACKMUN, concurring result. 39 I concur agree much reasoning ante, 738, obtaining what says $750,000 1971 $500,000 1972. alone, 'purpose' indeed tax,' brings play. anti-injunction statute consider comes statute's exception this, join Part 170(a) povides '(t)here contribution (as defined (c)) payment year. declares: 'Charitable defined.—For section, term 'charitable contribution' means gift use of— '(2) corporation, trust, foundation— '(A) possession thereof, State, Columbia, States; '(B) animals; '(C) individual; '(D) are, few unimportant Analogous estate purposes. 2055(a)(2) 2522(a)(2), 2522(a)(2). 3.01 72—39, 818, provides: 'Where listed ceases subsequently revokes previously persons changes generally considered allowable date publication Bulletin announcing However, precluded disallowing after 170, contributor knowledge letter, imminent, (3) responsible for, of, deficiencies qualification.' particularly respect foundations, contribute funds 4945(d)(5), 4945(d)(5). significance change several stages If indicates, exists, entitled submit written protests conferences Office level. 11, Cum.Bull., 708; 4, 818—819. qualifies, 501(c)(4) welfare organization. inevitably exemptions apply, keyed 3121(b)(8)(B) Mar. 2, 10, Stat. 475; Rev.Stat. 3224 (1874); Int.Rev.Code 3653. states: 'Except sections 6212(a) (c), 6213(a), 7426(a) (1), person, person whom assessed.' (Emphasis added.) italicized portion identical 'any,' revisers added Revised Statutes version. 192, 159, (1883). None relevant phrase commencing 'by 110(c) Federal Lien 1966, Pub.L. 89—719, 80 1144. main addition deal third parties who themselves property liens compete liens. Due were, often unable legitimate lien. H.R.Rep.No.1884, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 27—28 (1966). Such given 7426, amended, renders exclusive. person' is, reaffirmation emphasized respect, declaratory, innovative. Bittker Kaufman, Texes Civil Rights: 'Constitutionalizing' Yale L.J. 51, 57, n. (1972). 448, court), different antipathy extends declaratory judgments. 1935, Declaratory Judgment 48 955, 2201, 2202, amended exclude 'with .,' 405 c. 829, 1027, thus reaffirming restrictions reads: 2201. Creation Remedy. 'In controversy except pleading, declare relations interested declaration, Any declaration final decree reviewable such.' 2202. Further 'Further necessary proper granted, reasonable hearing, adverse judgment.' Some sweeping Borchard, Judgments 855 (2d ed. 1941); 58. S.Rep.No.1240, 74th 1st (1935). takes arguing courts, hand, coterminous application. 291, 1169, 1176 518; Tomlinson Smith, 128 808 (CA7 1942); supra; Jules Hairstylists Maryland, 268 511 (Md.1967), aff'd, 389 (CA4), 391 934, 88 1847, 854 (1968). cites response reliance dispute, least broad provision, there occasion resolve preclusive. Nor decide necessity request trigers Several courts Liberty Amendment Committee U.S.A. Action 70—721 (CD Cal. June 19, 1970) (unpublished), curiam, 26507 (CA9 July 409 1076, 93 684, 664 (1972); Mitchell Riddell, 402 842 1968), appeal 394 456, 89 1223, 415 (1969); Jolles Foundation, Moysey, 250 166 (CA2 1957); Kyron Dunlap, 110 428 1952). Note, Enjoining Assessment Collection Taxes Despite Statutory Prohibition, Harv.L.Rev. (1935); Gorovitz, Injunctions 446 (1932). unaffected loses redirect secure, presently enjoy follows, according preserving found inapplicable. speculative persuasive. presumes desert withdrawn equivalent amounts deem unlikely either premise wholly true. To extent inaccurate, interrupt Rev.Rule 1971—2 school plenary Court, reach today. (DC) defendant initially reversed while affirmance lacks precedential adversary controversy. 'tax' (1922) (tax unregulated sales commodities futures), unlawful liquor). true drew saw distinctions revenue-raising abandoned distinctions. Sonzinsky 300 506, 513, 57 554, 555, 81 772 (1937). merit, assist aimed imposition income, clearly currently prevailing commenced 1940, Taxpayer Rulings Policy Service: Statement Principles, NYU 20th Inst. Fed. 4—5 (1962), formal announcement until 1953. 1953—1 488. re-enactment, 1954, postudates commencement 13, re-enacting reaffirmed adding background general principles disfavoring injunctions inadequate. Dows City Chicago, Wall. 108, 109—110, 65 (1871); Shelton Platt, 139 591, 646, 273 (1891); Pittsburgh C.R. Board Pub. Works, 172 32, 90, 354 (1898). California Latimer, 305 255, 261 262, 59 166, 169—170, 83 159 (1938) (Brandeis, J., Court): '(The pursuing law), urged, circumstance justifies order promptly determined. incident justified refusal rule lie sole ground illegal, common every contest validity tax.' (Footnote omitted.) militating existed independently chosen restate existing litigants opened surprising early interpreting face value. earlier, bright-line exist 12, Stone, joined dissent Brandeis, underlined tension precedent: 'Enacted Act), sixty years, consistently applied precluding relief, whatever equities alleged.' 511, 264. Lenoir, Congressional Control Over Suits Restrain Taxes, Ariz.L.Rev. 177, 195 (1961). (Standard Nut) acknowledged head Act) absence jurisdiction. applies seems absurd. tantamount saying forbids anyway! denies courts.' 276, (1916): 'There provisions giving sue refund, wanting (to tax). suffices state demonstrate entire want merit.' availability actions, address adequacy postenforcment review—the approach, willing file utilize himself rigors behalf. differences donor's adequate remedy correcting illegal Service. reserve turns resolution. correct asserting restricted money judgments States. Brief Respondents 35. note, range raises considerations conclude neither nor 'collateral about reasonableness forced series backward-looking prospective utilized avenue mandated 'its normal practice favorable prevalied suit.' 31. When adheres favor plaintiff, course likelihood appropriate. today bars unless court. Thrower, Is Considering Far Reaching Changes Ruling Exempt Organizations, Taxation 168 (1971): possibility quick present. exemption having create litigable issue, guinea pig contribution, disallowed, disallowance. Assuming readiness litigate, hardly come arises. Ordinarily, tried. While passing, dormant interest move blessed imprimatur; pursued. 'This extremely unfortunate situation reasons. offends my sense justice undue needs decision. Second, gives greater finality decisions intended. Third, inhibits growth interpretative guide deliberations.'

Category: 11