Harvey v. Internal Revenue Service
670 F. App'x 198
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Cyril J. Harvey, Jr. and Doris D. Harvey (pro se) received notices alleging they failed to file Form 1040 returns for 2005–2013 and requested proof of the assessments before paying.
- When they did not receive verification, the Harveys filed a Louisiana state-court petition for writ of mandamus (Oct. 2015) seeking proof of tax liabilities and relief including lifting liens, stopping collection, restoring credit/licenses, and damages.
- Defendants (IRS, Louisiana Department of Revenue, and parish officials) removed the action to federal district court and moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
- The district court dismissed the Harveys’ federal claims for lack of jurisdiction, holding the suit was barred by the Anti–Injunction Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act’s tax exception, and remanded remaining state-law claims to state court.
- The Harveys appealed the dismissal and remand to the Fifth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court has jurisdiction to enjoin or obtain declaratory relief concerning alleged federal tax assessments | Harveys sought court orders compelling agencies to prove tax liabilities and to stop collection actions | Defendants argued the Anti–Injunction Act and Declaratory Judgment Act bar suits restraining assessment or collection of federal taxes | Dismissal affirmed: federal claims barred by Anti–Injunction Act and tax exception to Declaratory Judgment Act |
| Whether any statutory exception to the Anti–Injunction Act applies | Harveys asserted right to verification and relief before paying; sought mandamus and declaratory relief | Defendants noted no record evidence that Harveys qualify for a statutory exception to §7421(a) | No exception shown; Anti–Injunction Act applies |
| Whether district court properly considered factual jurisdictional matters on 12(b)(1) | Harveys contested dismissal of federal claims | Defendants relied on jurisdictional bar under federal tax statutes | De novo review supports district court’s factual finding and dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) |
| Whether district court erred in remanding state-law claims after dismissing federal claims | Harveys wanted federal court to retain all claims | Defendants urged dismissal of federal claims and remand of state claims | No abuse of discretion: district court properly declined supplemental jurisdiction and remanded state claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548 (5th Cir. 2008) (standards for de novo review of 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Machete Prods., L.L.C. v. Page, 809 F.3d 281 (5th Cir. 2015) (district court may find facts to determine subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Heggemeier v. Caldwell Cnty., 826 F.3d 861 (5th Cir. 2016) (abuse-of-discretion standard for refusing supplemental jurisdiction)
- McCarty v. United States, 929 F.2d 1085 (5th Cir. 1991) (Anti–Injunction Act and Declaratory Judgment Act tax exception bar suits seeking to restrain tax assessment or collection)