INSTRUCTIONS:  0.3. DEFEATING THE ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT (26 U.S.C. 7421)

The Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. 7421, states in pertinent part:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 76 > Subchapter B > Sec. 7421.
Sec. 7421. - Prohibition of suits to restrain assessment or collection

(a) Tax

Except as provided in sections 6015(e), 6212(a) and (c), 6213(a), 6225(b), 6246(b), 6330(e)(1), 6331(i), 6672(c), 6694(c), and 7426(a) and (b)(1), 7429(b), and 7436, no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.

Some people, including Peymon Mottahedeh of Freedom Law School (http://www.livefreenow.org) claim that if the IRS imputes that you have a tax liability and you want to litigate to protect your property rights in federal district court before they begin collection, then under the Full Payment Rule, you must pay the imputed liability first before the court will entertain your case.  He says that if you want to avoid paying the imputed tax before litigating, the only option available to you is to go to U.S. Tax Court to have the matter heard first.  However, by going to Tax Court, you surrender your right to a jury trial and your right to appeal to the Federal District Court, which bypasses an important Constitutional protection under the Seventh Amendment to have a jury trial.  This section shall establish the concept of a person called a “nontaxpayer” and show that the Full Payment Rule does not apply to nontaxpayers and it will show that the only people who are “taxpayers” for Subtitle A income taxes are those who volunteer to be, because our system is based on self-assessment and payment and not on distraint, according to the Supreme Court.

As we stated in section 5.6.3 of the Great IRS Hoax entitled "Taxpayer v. Nontaxpayer", there are two types of Americans:  "taxpayers" and "nontaxpayers". 

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."

"The distinction between persons and things within the scope of the revenue laws and those without is vital."
[Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 @ 238(1922)]

The IRS has no delegated authority to declare or make a person who is a "nontaxpayer" into a "taxpayer":

"A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the states as a person liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of 'taxpayer' is bestowed upon them and their property is seized..." 
[Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)]

The same is true of the federal courts:

"And by statutory definition the term "taxpayer" includes any person, trust or estate subject to a tax imposed by the revenue act. ...Since the statutory definition of taxpayer is exclusive, the federal [and state] courts do not have the power to create nonstatutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Revenue Acts..." 
[C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass'n., 100 F.2d.18 (1939)]

________________________________________________________________________________________________

United States Code

TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
PART VI - PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS
CHAPTER 151 - DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS
Sec. 2201. Creation of remedy

(a) In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, except with respect to Federal taxes other than actions brought under section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, a proceeding under section 505 or 1146 of title 11, or in any civil action involving an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding regarding a class or kind of merchandise of a free trade area country (as defined in section 516A(f)(10) of the Tariff Act of 1930), as determined by the administering authority, any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.

(b) For limitations on actions brought with respect to drug patents see section 505 or 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

The reason for this is clear:

  1. "Our tax system is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint"  Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (1960).
  2. There is no statute making anyone liable for the payment of Subtitle A income taxes.  The implementing regulation at 26 CFR 1.1-1 that creates an imputed liability is illegal, null, and fraudulent on its face because it exceeds the scope of the statute it implements at 26 U.S.C. 1.

"To the extent that regulations implement the statute, they have the force and effect of law...The regulation implements the statute and cannot vitiate or change the statute..."
[
Spreckles v. C.I.R., 119 F.2d, 667]

Consequently, the only person who can make you, a natural person, into a "taxpayer" and a person "liable for" the Subtitle A personal income tax is you and only you!  That is why even our own federal government says our system of taxation is based on voluntary compliance and self-assessment:

"Our tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary compliance".
[Mortimer Caplin, Internal Revenue Audit Manual (1975)]

Any other approach to Subtitle A income taxation of natural persons leads us to the conclusion that income tax forms are not voluntary, but compelled, and if they are compelled, then they are inadmissible as evidence in court as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) because they were illegally obtained under duress.  Absent evidence and first-hand knowledge, there can be no way to create a tax liability.  The W-2's your employer sends to the IRS are merely hearsay evidence.

Although many in the government and legal profession would like to deceive you into believing otherwise, it is always possible and advisable to recover wrongfully collected taxes or to stop the wrongful collection of illegally or improperly assessed taxes without paying the illegal tax first:

"Statute prohibiting suits to restrain assessment or collection of Federal taxes is general in its terms and should not be construed as abrogating equitable principles which permit suits to restrain collection where exaction is illegal and there exist special circumstances sufficient to bring case within some acknowledged head of equity jurisdiction.  26 U.S.C.A. 3653."

"Statute prohibiting suits to restrain assessment and collection of Federal taxes is directed at the person liable for taxes and is not intended to preclude courts from affording protection to one not liable to taxes whose property may be in danger of seizure and sale by the taxing authorities."  Shelton v. Gill, 202 F.2d 503 (1953)

The Supreme Court has gone so far as to say that those who try to collect taxes outside their Constitutional authority are communists!  Below is an excellent cite from the Supreme Court that frames the issues very clearly of what must happen to an IRS agent who tries to extort money outside his lawful authority. This cite is from Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270; 5 S.Ct. 903 (1885)

“… the maxim that the King can do no wrong has no place in our system of government; yet it is also true, in respect to the State itself, that whatever wrong is attempted in its name is imputable to its government and not to the State, for, as it can speak and act only by law, whatever it does say and do must be lawful.  That which therefore is unlawful because made so by the supreme law, the Constitution of the United States, is not the word or deed of the State, but is the mere wrong and trespass of those individual persons who falsely spread and act in its name."

"This distinction is essential to the idea of constitutional government. To deny it or blot it out obliterates the line of demarcation that separates constitutional government from absolutism, free self- government based on the sovereignty of the people from that despotism, whether of the one or the many, which enables the agent of the state to declare and decree that he is the state; to say 'L'Etat, c'est moi.' Of what avail are written constitutions, whose bills of right, for the security of individual liberty, have been written too often with the blood of martyrs shed upon the battle-field and the scaffold, if their limitations and restraints upon power may be overpassed with impunity by the very agencies created and appointed to guard, defend, and enforce them; and that, too, with the sacred authority of law, not only compelling obedience, but entitled to respect? And how else can these principles of individual liberty and right be maintained, if, when violated, the judicial tribunals are forbidden to visit penalties upon individual offenders, who are the instruments of wrong, whenever they interpose the shield of the state? The doctrine is not to be tolerated. The whole frame and scheme of the political institutions of this country, state and federal, protest against it. Their continued existence is not compatible with it. It is the doctrine of absolutism, pure, simple, and naked, and of communism which is its twin, the double progeny of the same evil birth."

And here is another example from an similar but earlier Supreme Court decision in the case of Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine Co., 284 U.S. 498; 52 S.Ct. 260; 76 L.Ed. 422 (1932):

“Notwithstanding the Federal statute declaring that no suit for the purpose of restraining the collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court, a suit may be maintained to enjoin collection where complainant shows that in addition to the illegality of the exaction there exist special and extraordinary circumstances sufficient to bring the case within some acknowledged head of equity jurisprudence.

“When a law is passed, certified, signed, and filed, it must as to form, be conclusive.” P. 502; 426. [Supporting citation omitted.]

Being a revenue law, it must be construed most favorably in behalf of the taxpayer.” P. 502; 426. [Supporting citations omitted.]

“It is elementary that tax laws are to be interpreted liberally in favor of taxpayers and that words defining things to be taxed may not be extended beyond their clear import.  Doubts must be resolved against the Government and in favor of taxpayers.”  P. 508; 429.

[Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine Co., 284 U.S. 498; 52 S.Ct. 260; 76 L.Ed. 422 (1932)]

A knowledge of the above information can be very powerful in addressing wrongs of the Internal Revenue Service and in defeating the Anti-Injunction Act (26 U.S.C. 7421).  The case of Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States, 470 F.2d 585 (1972) very clearly describes how to proceed to prevent illegal assessment or collection of taxes against "nontaxpayers":

"In support of the foregoing conclusions, we wish to point out and emphasize that Congress has established a well-defined and comprehensive administrative system for the recovery of overpaid taxes by taxpayers.  All taxpayers who have overpaid their taxes are within this system and must follow the appropriate procedures and regulations, including the timely filing of claims for refunds for overpayment of taxes, if they are to have the benefits of the system.  On the other hand, persons who are not taxpayers are not within the system and can obtain no benefit by following the procedures prescribed for taxpayers, such as filing of claims for refunds.  For example, there have been many cases where parties have sued to enjoin the assessment or collection of their moneys to pay the taxes of another, notwithstanding Section 263 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 (26 U.S.C. 3653 (1952 ed.) that provided that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court".  The courts have allowed these suits because the parties filing the suits were not taxpayers and were outside the revenue system of which the above statute is part.  See Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (D.Mont. 1922); Rothensies v. Ullman, 110 F.2d 590 (3rd Cir. 1940); Raffaele v. Granger, 196 F.2d 620 (3rt Cir. 1952); and Bullock v. Latham, 306 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1962).  In Long v. Rasmussen, the court said:

"* * *  They [the revenue laws] relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers.  The latter are without their scope.  No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law.  * * * [Id. 281 F. at 238]

"In other cases suits have been filed by nontaxpayers whose property has already been taken to pay the taxes of others, without filing claims for refund, and such suits have been allowed against the Collector or District Director of Internal Revenue in actions similar to the old action in assumpsit for money had and received, even though lacking in statutory authority."

"Our plaintiffs are not taxpayers and could not sue for a tax refund as a taxpayer could.  All they could do was to sue to recover their property, which was the funds due them as an equitable adjustment under the contract, and this is exactly what they have done.

"The above cases are illustrative of the proposition that a nontaxpayer is outside the administrative system set up for the collection of a refund of overpaid taxes, and is not required to file a claim for refund to recover money taken from him to pay the taxes of another." 
[Economy Plumbing & Heating v. United States, 470 F.2d 585 (1972) ]

Wow!  This is powerful stuff folks!  So how to we enjoin or stop the illegal collection of a tax against a "nontaxpayer"?  The courts have identified the criteria as follows:

  • No formal assessment was issued against the injured party.  See Gordon v. U.S. Treasury Dept., Int. Rev. Serv., 322 F.Supp. 537 (1970).  The way to qualify for this type of motion is to use the FOIA to request a copy of any and all valid assessments prior to your first hearing and to include the response as evidence with your pleading to enjoin collection.  Remember, the only person who can assess a natural person is himself or herself!  Substitute for returns are not authorized for form 1040 or 1040NR taxes!
  • The property of a third person other than a "taxpayer" has been wrongfully levied or liened.  (see 26 U.S.C. 7426(a)(1)) 
  • The "legal remedy is inadequate and it is apparent that, under most liberal view of law and facts, United States cannot establish its claim."  Walker v. Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Treasury Dept., 333 F.2d 768 (1964).
  • The party against whom collection was instituted is not liable for the tax.  See Shelton v. Gill, 202 F.2d 503 (1953)
  • A "taxpayer" who is the subject of a lawfully and properly assessed tax under may be granted an injunction under "special and extraordinary circumstances of sufficient importance to warrant court interference".  Examples might be that the collection of the tax not owed against a nontaxpayer might impose severe hardship.  See Martin v. Andrews, 238 F.2d 552 (9th Cir. 1956); Singleton v. Mathis, 284 F.2d 616 (8th Cir. 1960).

According to Internal Revenue Manual section 35.18.9.1:

35.18.9.1  (08-31-1982)
Taxpayers

1.  It has been uniformly held that the waiver of sovereign immunity in section 1346(a)(1) of the Judiciary Code (28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(1)) only applies to taxpayers, and not nontaxpayers or interested parties. Busse v. United States, 542 F.2d 421 (7th Cir. 1076); Hofheinz v. United States, 511 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1975); Eighth Street Baptist Church v. United States, 431 F.2d 1193 (10th Cir. 1970); Phillips v. United States, 346 F.2d 999 (2d Cir. 1965); First Nat'l Bank of Emlenton v. United States, 165 F.2d 297 (3rd Cir. 1959). Accordingly, where a party not liable for the tax has brought a refund suit, a motion to dismiss should be recommended.

Consequently, a “nontaxpayer” may use any statute in the Internal Revenue Code as authority to sue for a refund to recover taxes voluntarily paid for which he was not liable. If you don’t think you are liable, then for God’s sake don’t pay the tax first and then litigate to get it back!  On the surface, this would appear to encourage officials within the federal government to act irresponsibly towards the property rights of Americans who are nontaxpayers because it would create a situation where they could steal property with impunity through illegal levies and liens. However, if this nontaxpayer paid the illegal tax under duress, he may sue for damages and request a writ of mandamus to recover the taxes paid:

"Person voluntarily paying illegal tax has no claim for repayment."

"Person paying illegal tax under duress has legal claim for its repayment, notwithstanding money has gone into treasury and has been paid out by disbursing officers."

"Duress in payment of illegal tax may be either express or implied, and legal duty to refund exists in both instances."

[Austin Nat. Bank of Austin v. Sheppard, 71 S.W.2d 242 (1934)]

Similarly, if property of a nontaxpayer was illegally seized or garnished or levied by the IRS, then the nontaxpayer should pursue a writ of mandamus rather than a refund suit, which is an equity suit to compensate for the wrong committed by the government against his property rights.

"...because the state is interested in compelling its agents to obey its commands, it is well settled that mandamus will lie to compel the payment of money by public officials, when the duty to pay it is plain, and the claim is just, undisputed in amount, and based on a clear legal right." 
[State v. County Com'rs of Fairfield County, 99 Conn. 378; 121 A. 800 (1923)]

Other equitable remedies may be available for the case where a person is a “nontaxpayer” and has been mistreated or abused by the IRS by being treated as a “taxpayer” and made the target of wrongful collection actions.  Recall that income taxes based on labor of a natural person who is not a a privileged "public officers" of the United States government and who is living in a state of the Union and outside of the federal zone amount to slavery, as we pointed out earlier in section 5.4.1.  Slavery is prohibited by both the Thirteenth Amendment and by various federal statutes, including 42 U.S.C. 1994 (Peonage abolished) and 18 U.S.C. 1589 (forced labor).  That section even goes so far as to say that wrongful use or abuse of the legal process also amounts to slavery, and that is exactly what the IRS does: harass those who don’t want to pay income taxes by abusing the legal process.  Here is the section:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 77 > Sec. 1589.
Sec. 1589. - Forced labor

Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person -

(1) by threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against, that person or another person;

(2) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or 

(3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both

18 U.S.C. 1593 actually mandates restitution for people who have been so enslaved.  You may then be able to use this as a basis for why you can’t abide by the full payment rule (if the judge insists that you are a “taxpayer”) and why the government and not you must pay back the money that they owe you.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 77 > Sec. 1593.
Sec. 1593. - Mandatory restitution

(a)  Notwithstanding section 3663 or 3663A, and in addition to any other civil or criminal penalties authorized by law, the court shall order restitution for any offense under this chapter.

(b)

(1) The order of restitution under this section shall direct the defendant to pay the victim (through the appropriate court mechanism) the full amount of the victim's losses, as determined by the court under paragraph (3) of this subsection.

(2) An order of restitution under this section shall be issued and enforced in accordance with section 3664 in the same manner as an order under section 3663A.

(3) As used in this subsection, the term ''full amount of the victim's losses'' has the same meaning as provided in section 2259(b)(3) and shall in addition include the greater of the gross income or value to the defendant of the victim's services or labor or the value of the victim's labor as guaranteed under the minimum wage and overtime guarantees of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.).

(c) As used in this section, the term ''victim'' means the individual harmed as a result of a crime under this chapter, including, in the case of a victim who is under 18 years of age, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, the legal guardian of the victim or a representative of the victim's estate, or another family member, or any other person appointed as suitable by the court, but in no event shall the defendant be named such representative or guardian

This section provides a powerful tool to recover monies wrongfully assessed or collected against those who are “nontaxpayers”.  The other thing to remember is that all the statutes dealing with slavery, unlike all those dealing with most other federal matters, may be enforced inside states of the union as well as in the federal zone, according to the Supreme Court.  Here is the authority from Clyatt v. U.S., 197 U.S. 207 (1904):

“Other authorities to the same effect might be cited.  It is not open to doubt that Congress may enforce the Thirteenth Amendment by direct legislation, punishing the holding of a person in slavery or in involuntary servitude except as a punishment for a crime.  In the exercise of that power Congress has enacted these sections denouncing peonage, and punishing one who holds another in that condition of involuntary servitude.  This legislation is not limited to the territories or other parts of the strictly national domain, but is operative in the states and wherever the sovereignty of the United States extends.  We entertain no doubt of the validity of this legislation, or of its applicability to the case of any person holding another in a state of peonage, and this whether there be municipal ordinace or state law sacntioning such holding.  It operates directly on every citizen of the Republic, wherever his residence may be.
[Clyatt v. U.S., 197 U.S. 207 (1904)]

So even if the slavery occurred inside a state of the union, federal courts still have the authority to remedy it under the above statutes!  If you are living outside of the federal zone in one of the 50 states of the union, then you are protected by this law, and the court MUST to give you restitution if you can show the servitude was involuntary or coerced.  If the IRS has made you into a debt slave or a peon in paying off debts that you weren’t liable for as a “nontaxpayer”, then the district courts HAVE to give you restitution by law.

“The constitutionality and scope of sections 1990 and 5526 present the first questions for our consideration.  They prohibit peonage.  What is peonage?  It may be defined as a state or condition of compulsory service, based upon the indebtedness of the peon to the master.  The basal fact is indebtedness.  As said by Judge Benedict, delivering the opinion in Jaremillo v. Romero, 1 N.Mex. 190, 194: ‘One fact existed universally; all were indebted to their masters.  This was the cord by which they seemed bound to their masters’ service.’ Upon this is based a condition of compulsory service.  Peonage is sometimes classified as voluntary or involuntary, but this implies simply a difference in the mode of origin, but not in the character of the servitude.  The one exists where the debtor voluntarily contracts to enter the service of his creditor.  The other is forced upon the debtor by some provision of law.  But peonage, however created, is compulsory service, involuntary servitude.  The peon can release himself therefrom, it is true, by the payment of the debt, but otherwise the service is enforced. A clear distinction exists between peonage and the voluntary performance of labor or rendering of services in payment of a debt. In the latter case the debtor, though contracting to pay his indebtedness by labor or service, and subject like any other contractor to an action for damages for breach of that contract, can elect at any time to break it, and no law or force compels performance or continuance of the service.” 
[Clyatt v. U.S., 197 U.S. 207 (1904)]

Powerful stuff, folks!

Burden of proof

"It has been held by the Supreme Court that under the exception to the Anti-Injunction Act's (26 USCS 7421(a)) prohibition of suits to restrain the assessment or collection of federal taxes, whereby an injunction may be obtained if

"(1) it is clear that under no circumstances can the government ultimately prevail, and

"(2) equity jurisdiction otherwise exists (see 10[a], supra,)

"the question whether the government will ultimately prevail is to be resolved on the basis of the information possessed by the government at the time of the suit, and that while the burden of producing evidence is on the taxpayer, the government will be required to disclose, through discovery, facts in its sole possession, unless it voluntarily discloses the basis for its assessment, which if sufficient, will terminate discovery proceedings and justify judgment for the government." 

[Laing v. United States, 423 U.S. 161; 96 S.Ct. 473; 46 L.Ed.2d 416 (1976)]

Other Remedies:  Bivens Actions

In addition to the remedies above, nontaxpayes can also pursue a Bivens action against those federal government officials who have illegally attempted to collect or assess taxes against sovereign citizens who are "nontaxpayers".  See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388; 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971).

"A "Bivens action" provides action for damages to vindicate constitutional right when a federal government official has violated such right; action is available if no equally effective remedy is available, no explicit congressional declaration precludes recovery, and no "special factors counsel hesitation." [Rauschenberg v. Williamson, C.A. 11(Ga). 785 F.2d 985, 987]

""Bivens action" is nonstatutory counterpart of suit brought pursuant to 1983, and is aimed at federal, rather than state, officials.  [Mahoney v. National Organization of Women, D.Conn., 681 F.Supp. 129, 132]

"In "Bivens action," damages may be obtained for injuries consequent upon violation of Constitution by federal officials."  [Kingsley v. Bureau of Prisons, C.A.2 (N.Y.), 937 F.2d 26, 31."  Words and Phrases, Vol. 40, p. 134]

The party we are suing in a Bivens action is usually a federal official as a private individual, and because it is an individual, then sovereign immunity of the federal government cannot be asserted to evade liability.  Bivens actions involve injuries that cannot be addressed or redressed through statutory means, usually because Congress has refused to pass a statute or law making a harmful action of a federal official illegal.  The wrongful collection of federal taxes against nontaxpayers is an example of a behavior congress refuses to make illegal, because they want to STEAL your money with impugnity!  Here is what one district court said about this:

"Although Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause applies only to states, Fifth Amendment's due process clause contains equal protection component applicable to federal government."

"Statutory actions may give breadth to constitutional rights, but congressional inaction cannot suffocate them."

"Among other things, the Constitution is a compendium of rights, and their enforcement does not depend on statutory enrollment.  As Bivens establishes, legislative inaction does not vitiate constitutional rights.  Statutory actions may give breath to constitutional rights, but congressional inaction cannot suffocate them." 
[Davis v. Passman, 544 F.2d 865 (1977)]

Bivens actions are based on the idea that public officials are not free of liability if they commit a wrong that is not authorized by their delegated authority:

"But immunity from suit is a high attribute of sovereignty--a prerogative of the State itself--which cannot be availed of by public agents when sued for their own torts.  The 11th Amendment was not intended to afford them freedom from liability in any case where, under color of their office, they have injured one of the State's citizens.  To grant them such immunity would be to create a privileged class free from liability from wrongs inflicted or injuries threatened.  Public agents must be liable to the law, unless they are to be put above the law." [Citing Hopkins v. Clemson Agri. College, 221 U.S. 636]. 
[Old Colony Trust Co. v. Seattle, 271 U.S. 427; 70 L.Ed. 1019 (1926)
]

On many occasions, the government will substitute itself as the defendant in a Bivens suit and in doing so, may not assert sovereign immunity.  This may only occur, according to the Anti-Injunction Act, if the party injured is not the "taxpayer" or person against whom the tax was assessed, which means they are an innocent third party who has been injured by wrongful collection action.  The Anti-Injunction Act states the following with regard to substitution of itself as party for the federal official:

"26 U.S.C. 7426 Civil actions by persons other than taxpayers

...

(e) Substitution of United States as party

     If an action, which could be brought against the United States under this section, is improperly brought against any officer or employee of the United States (or former officer or employee) or his personal representative, the court shall order, upon such terms as are just, that the pleadings be amended to substitute the United States as a party for such officer or employee as of the time such action was commenced upon proper service of process on the United States."

Do you get the idea from the above that the government runs a protection racket so its employees who are acting outside the law will be free of legal consequence for their improprieties?  Sure looks that way to us!

For further information on the subject of Injunction Actions, read the U.S. Attorney's Manual, section 6-5.330 entitled "Injunction Actions" at:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title6/5mtax.htm#6-5.330