Background
Robert Anderson, a property owner in Anchorage, Alaska, filed a pro se action under Section nineteen eighty-three of Title forty-two of the United States Code against the Municipality of Anchorage. He challenged the constitutionality of the tax assessor entering his property without a warrant and the levy of a ten percent penalty on delinquent taxes without prior notice. The district court dismissed most claims for failure to state a claim and the remaining claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act.
The court’s reasoning
The Ninth Circuit held that the Tax Injunction Act, Section one thousand three hundred forty-one of Title twenty-eight of the United States Code, is a broad jurisdictional barrier that prohibits federal district courts from enjoining, suspending, or restraining the assessment, levy, or collection of any tax under state law where a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts. The court found that Anderson sought relief that would restrain the assessment and collection of local property taxes, and that Alaska state law provides a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy through administrative appeals and state court review. Because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, it could not affirm the dismissal on the merits.
What it means going forward
Taxpayers must pursue constitutional challenges to local tax policies in state court rather than federal court, as federal jurisdiction is barred by the Tax Injunction Act.