Talk:Tax Anti-Injunction Act

More work ahead
I will try to add more clarification and correction to this article later. As currently written, I think the article is actually talking about more than one concept, but the concepts are related. Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear 23:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Made-up article title?
I'm have a feeling that "Tax Anti-Injunction Act" is a made-up title. The references to this act that I've read recently all refer to it as the "Anti-Injunction Act." My feeling is that Wikipedia decided to disambiguate by prefixing with the word "Tax" and now others are following Wikipedia's lead(!). Is there any evidence (reliable sources) to suggest that the act is actually titled the "Tax Anti-Injunction Act" and not simply the "Anti-Injunction Act"? It's simple enough to disambiguate with a parenthetical.... --MZMcBride (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent question. The short answer is that "Tax Anti-Injunction Act" is almost certainly a made-up title. As a tax practitioner, I have never seen it referred to as the "Tax Anti-Injunction Act."


 * However, the original Act -- namely, a specific portion of section 10 of the "Act of March 2, 1867", Chapter 169 (Chapter CLXIX), in Volume 14 of the United States Statutes at Large, beginning at page 471 -- actually, technically, was not officially entitled the "Anti-Injunction Act" either. Section 10 of that Act, on page 475, did several things among which was that it added the following statement to the laws of the United States: "And no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of tax shall be maintained in any court."


 * The law changed form as it was re-enacted over the years. In the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, for example, it was found in section 3653. In the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (now officially named the "Internal Revenue Code of 1986") it was part of section 7421, which is where it is found today.


 * It's possible that one of the enacting statutes over the years actually included the phrase "Anti-Injunction Act," but I don't know.


 * The current Internal Revenue Code does not, as far as I know, include the phrase or heading "Anti-Injunction Act" in referring to section 7421(a).


 * Let me do some more checking on this. Famspear (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I have found a law review note (the term "note" here means essentially an article written by a law student, it's just that such articles are not called "articles" in the parlance of scholarly law reviews and law journals) where the term "Tax Anti-Injunction Act" is used. It is "How to Reach the Constitutional Question in the Health Care Cases", by Daniel J. Hemel, Stanford Law Review Online, Vol. 64, page 39. In footnote 5, he states: "I will refer to 28 U.S.C. § 7421 as the Tax Anti-Injunction Act to distinguish it from 28 U.S.C. § 2283, also often called “the Anti-Injunction Act.”" See . Although he is listed as the Editor-in-Chief of the Yale Law Journal (very impressive), it is unknown whether Mr. Hemel is or has ever been a tax practitioner. It looks like he's using the term "Tax Anti-Injunction Act" for the same reason we're doing that here in Wikipedia.


 * I know this will sound boring, but I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the method of disambiguation to be used here. Famspear (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Huh, thanks for looking into this! I saw your comment above September 2006, but didn't think you were still active and watching this talk page.

The footnote you mention is interesting. I found a copy of the article online here. Footnotes 4 and 5 both reference the "Tax Anti-Injunction Act":

4. One might think that if the health care law’s penalty provision falls within the TA-IA’s definition of a “tax,” then the answer to the constitutional question would be straightforward, since Congress unquestionably has the “Power To lay and collect Taxes.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1. Note, though, that a provision may be a “tax” for the purposes of the TA-IA’s jurisdictional bar but not a “tax” for the purposes of Article I, Section 8. See Alexander v. “Americans United” Inc., 416 U.S. 752, 759 (1974); Bailey v. George, 259 U.S. 16, 20 (1922); Liberty Univ., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18618, at *32-33; Michael C. Dorf & Neil S. Siegel, “Early-Bird Special” Indeed!: Why the Tax Anti-Injunction Act Permits the Present Challenges to the Minimum Coverage Provision, 121 Yale L.J. Online (forthcoming 2012), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1969540 (manuscript at 7 n.33). Thus, if the Court finds that the TA-IA applies in 2012, it will not necessarily have to uphold the health care law’s penalty provision as a constitutional exercise of Congress’s Tax Power in 2015. 5. I will refer to 28 U.S.C. § 7421 as the Tax Anti-Injunction Act to distinguish it from 28 U.S.C. § 2283, also often called “the Anti-Injunction Act.”

I find this interesting as this article is from 2012 as is the referenced article mentioned in footnote 4. Based on the apparent lack of references to the "Tax Anti-Injunction Act" from prior to this year, I continue to believe that this is Wikipedia shaping the real world (frightening thought...).

I looked at other acts that have been disambiguated on Wikipedia (Hatch Act, Privacy Act, Elections Act, Equality Act, Charities Act, etc.). There doesn't seem to be a very consistent style, apart from the British simply tacking on the year number to disambiguate for their own acts.

I'm thinking that Anti-Injunction Act should be a disambiguation page with two entries: Anti-Injunction Act (1867) and Anti-Injunction Act (1793). Any thoughts you have on this (beyond apathy) would be appreciated. :-)

And thanks again for looking into this. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. And I guess I don't have any more thoughts. I think I didn't get enough sleep last night. Famspear (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a moot point now, but I was just going over the transcript of yesterday's (Monday, March 26, 2012) oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the health care cases (case no. 11-398, Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida), and I see that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself referred to the Act as the "Tax Anti-Injunction Act" to distinguish it from the other Anti-Injunction Act. It's on page 19 of the transcript. Still, I do like the revised title of this article: "Anti-Injunction Act (1867)". Famspear (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? The transcript suggests otherwise. I saw a few media reports that quoted Justice Ginsburg as saying "Tax Anti-Injunction Act," but the official(?) transcript only says "Tax Injunction Act." --MZMcBride (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. I had misread it. She says "Tax Injunction Act." Famspear (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I made Tax Injunction Act a redirect to this article. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Tax Anti-Injunction Act" is not a title made up on Wikipedia
There are 65 hits on Google Scholar. 5470 results on Google Books. Tax practitioners naturally omit the word "Tax" sometimes, but the far more significant and well-known Anti-Injunction Act is the one that prevents federal courts from enjoining state courts. Disambiguating by year is sub-optimal, as almost no one remembers the years they were first passed. Even if the tax act were about as well-known under this name, the fact that it has two viable titles and the other act has only the one, makes this an easier call. Savidan 20:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Thank you for the links. I'll note that a decent number of the Google Scholar results are matches for "tax Anti-Injunction Act." There are also more than a few results with "Tax Anti-Injunction Act (AIA)," which is kind of puzzling. I did come across one that used "TA-IA," though. And, of course, there are quite a few results from 2012. Still, I think you make a reasonable point regarding the article title. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, and a number of the Google Books results for "Tax Anti-Injunction Act" cite 28 USCA § 1341. Stranger and stranger. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)