United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Anthony P. Patti, Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Security, Inc. filed this action against the United States of
America, requesting that the Court order an abatement of
certain tax penalties that the Internal Revenue Service
(“IRS”) inadvertently assessed against
Prudential; Prudential also seeks an injunction against
different, newly issued assessments.
did abate the inadvertently assessed penalties, mooting
Prudential's first request.
respect to the remaining assessments, the Anti-Injunction Act
bars Prudential's claim; Prudential cannot demonstrate
that it would suffer irreparable injury or that it otherwise
lacks an adequate legal remedy.
Government's motion to dismiss is
is a Michigan corporation providing security services. The
IRS inadvertently assessed tax penalties against Prudential
for the 2014 and 2015 calendar years; the penalties were
assessed under 26 U.S.C. § 6721 for failing to file
forms 8300 and under 26 U.S.C. § 6685 for failing to
make certain tax returns available for public inspection as
required by 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d). The IRS acknowledged
that those penalties were inadvertently assessed and abated
has now assessed what it considers to be the correct
penalties against Prudential for its alleged failure to
furnish W-2's to its employees in 2014 and 2015.
Prudential says the IRS knows that it did furnish W-2's
to its employees for the years in question; it says the IRS
has copies of the W-2's and received sworn declarations
that the W-2's were distributed. Prudential claims that
the IRS is “harassing the Plaintiff by assessing and
threatening to assess bogus penalties in large amounts in
order to destroy Plaintiff's credit and business
reputation.” Prudential seeks injunctive relief. The
Government seeks dismissal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may assert as a
defense, that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over the claims. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). “When subject
matter jurisdiction is challenged under Rule 12(b)(1), the
plaintiff has the burden of proving jurisdiction in order to
survive the motion.” Madison-Hughes v.
Shalala, 80 F.3d 1121, 1130 (6th Cir. 1996).
to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction fall into
two general categories: facial attacks and factual attacks.
United States v. Ritchie, 15 F.3d 592, 598 (6th Cir.
1994). A factual attack is a challenge to the factual
existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at
598. When considering a factual attack, the Court is free to
weigh the evidence and satisfy itself concerning the
existence of its power to hear the case. Id. In
matters regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the court may
look to evidence outside the pleadings. Nichols v.
Muskingum College, 318 F.3d 674, 677 (6th Cir. 2003).