The following analysis will explain why 26 USC Section 6330(a) is an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act (26 USC 7421.)
26 USC 7421(a) in its relevant part states: “Except as provided in sections …, 6330(e)(1), …, 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.” Clearly 6330(e)(1) is a specific exception to the Anti Injunction Act.
Section 6330(e)(1) in its relevant part states: “if a hearing is requested under subsection (a)(3)(B), … Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7421(a), the beginning of a levy or proceeding during the time the suspension under this paragraph is in force may be enjoined by a proceeding in the proper court, including the Tax Court.” Emphasis added. Not only the language of Section 6330(e)(1) also clearly states that Section 6330(e)(1) is a specific to the Anti Injunction Act, but it clearly makes Section 6330(a)(3)(B) a prerequisite or part of Section 6330(e)(1). This fact makes Section 6330(a)(3)(B) also a specific exception to the Anti Injunction Act.
Section 6330(a)(3)(B) states in its relevant part: “The notice required under paragraph (1) shall include in simple and nontechnical terms - (A) …; (B) the right of the person to request a hearing during the 30-day period under paragraph.” Emphasis added. Therefore in order for Section 6330(e)(1) to come into play, Respondent must have first issued the notice required under paragraph (1).
Paragraph one is Section 6330(a)(1) which states: “No levy may be made on any property or right to property of any person unless the Secretary has notified such person in writing of their right to a hearing under this section before such levy is made…”. Therefore, not only 6330(a)(3)(B) is an inherent part and prerequisite of Section 6330(e)(1) but paragraph Section 6330(a)(1) which is the prerequisite or included part of Section 6330(a)(3)(B) is also an inherent and prerequisite part of Section 6330(e)(1). Therefore Section 6330(a)(1) is also a specific exception to the Anti Injunction Act.
The above statutory construction analysis clearly shows that Congress intended that Respondent in writing sends the person a notice of his right to a hearing before a levy may be made by the Respondent on the person’s property or right to property. It is well established that a person’s wages are the person’s property. See [put the code section and the court cases that says that here. We have those citations already in our other lock in letter briefs].
What the statutory construction analysis further shows is that Congress intended that the exception to the Anti- Injunction Act language of Section 6330(e)(1) also apply to Section 6330(a)(1). Therefore the Tax Court in addition to having the jurisdiction to stop the Respondent from violating Section 6330(e)(1), has jurisdiction to stop the Respondent from violating Section 6330(a)(1) as well.
In other words, the Tax Court in addition to having the jurisdiction to restrain the IRS from collections after Respondent issues a Determination letter and the person has requested a hearing under Section 6330(e)(1), has jurisdiction to restrain Respondent from collections when Respondent has failed to issue the person a notice of his right to a hearing under Section 6330(a)(1) as well. Therefore the Tax court does have jurisdiction and should issue and order to restrain Respondent’s current collection action which was initiated without Respondent notifying Petitioner of his right to a hearing.