1. When applicable, does the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a), deprive a federal court of subject-matter jurisdiction? See J.L. Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 5-8 (1962). If so, does it divest federal courts of jurisdiction in this case? See Bob Jones University v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 736-48 (1974).
2. Can a court determine that a challenged exaction qualifies as a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act without reaching the question of whether the exaction qualifies as a “tax” for purposes of Art. I, § 8, cl. 1? Compare Bailey v. George, 259 U.S. 16 (1922), with Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20 (1922).
3. Assuming the Anti-Injunction Act does apply in this case, does a plaintiff have the ability to challenge the exaction provided by § 5000A in a refund suit or otherwise? See 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1340, 1346.
The parties submitted those briefs at the Fourth Circuit Tuesday.
* You can find the United States's supplemental brief in Virginia v. Sebelius here.
* You can find Virginia's supplemental brief here.
* You can find the United States's supplemental brief in Liberty University v. Geithner here.
* You can find the supplemental brief of Liberty University et al. here.
In addition, the Pacific Legal Foundation has moved to file a supplemental amicus letter brief in Virginia v. Sebelius, which you can find here. No word yet on whether the court will grant PLF's motion.