Simeon Lewis v. BNSF Railway Company
16-1444
| 7th Cir. | Dec 13, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Simeon Lewis (aka Simeon Washa Amen Ra) is an employee of BNSF Railway who objects to payroll deductions for federal income tax withholding, an IRS levy for back taxes, and garnishments for delinquent child support ordered by a Cook County circuit court.
- Lewis sued BNSF and an executive seeking to stop further payroll deductions and to recover amounts already withheld, alleging constitutional and state-law violations.
- The district court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the complaint sua sponte.
- The court concluded the Anti-Injunction Act barred equitable relief aimed at restraining federal tax collection and related employer withholding practices.
- The court also held an employer is immune from liability for complying with an IRS notice of levy under 26 U.S.C. § 3403, and the Rooker–Feldman doctrine precluded federal review of the state-court child-support garnishment orders.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed and warned Lewis that further litigation of similar frivolous theories could result in sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anti-Injunction Act bars suit to enjoin withholding of federal income tax | Lewis contends withholding and levy are unlawful and seeks to stop them | BNSF argues suit would effectively enjoin federal tax collection and is barred by 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) | Held: Barred by the Anti-Injunction Act; court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin tax collection |
| Whether employer liable for complying with IRS notice of levy | Lewis seeks damages/return of amounts withheld under levy | BNSF asserts immunity under § 3403 for complying with IRS levy | Held: Employer not liable for complying with IRS levy |
| Whether federal court may review and vacate state-court child-support garnishment orders | Lewis challenges existence/validity of Cook County orders | Defendants maintain Rooker–Feldman forbids federal collateral review of state-court judgments | Held: Rooker–Feldman bars federal review of state-court garnishment orders |
| Whether plaintiff’s assorted tax-sovereign and related theories justify relief | Lewis advances frivolous sovereign-citizen/tax theories to avoid withholding | Defendants and courts treat theories as meritless and precluded by precedent | Held: Theories rejected; dismissal affirmed and warning of possible sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (doctrine limiting federal review of state-court judgments)
- Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (establishing the principle prohibiting lower federal courts from reviewing state-court decisions)
- United States v. American Friends Service Committee, 419 U.S. 7 (1974) (Anti-Injunction Act bars suits to restrain federal tax assessment/collection)
- Cleveland v. C.I.R., 600 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2010) (Anti-Injunction Act precluded challenge to IRS lock-in withholding directive)
- Burda v. M. Ecker Co., 2 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 1993) (employer immunity for complying with IRS levy)
- Edgar v. Inland Steel Co., 744 F.2d 1276 (7th Cir. 1984) (employer not liable for complying with IRS levy)
- Sykes v. Cook Cnty. Cir. Ct. Prob. Div., 837 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2016) (Rooker–Feldman application to state family-court orders)
- T.W. v. Brophy, 124 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 1997) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state-court child-support determinations)
- Towe Antique Ford Found. v. I.R.S., 999 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1993) (taxpayer has no right to pre-levy hearing in district court)
- Bright v. Bechtel Petroleum, Inc., 780 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1986) (Anti-Injunction Act bars employee suit against employer over withholding under IRS directive)
- Maxfield v. U.S. Postal Serv., 752 F.2d 433 (9th Cir. 1984) (Anti-Injunction Act prevents court from entertaining claims that employer must honor employee’s claimed W-4 exemptions)