Hansen v. Department of Treasury

• Decision Date: 07 May 2007
• Docket Number: No. 05-16091.,05-16091.
• Parties: Ethan J. HANSEN; Jonathan J. Hansen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; United States Internal Revenue Service; Social Security Administration, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

528 F.3d 597

Ethan J. HANSEN; Jonathan J. Hansen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; United States Internal Revenue Service; Social Security Administration, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-16091.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 8, 2007.

Filed May 7, 2007.

Joel F. Hansen (briefed and argued), Hansen & Hansen, LLC, Las Vegas, NV, for the plaintiffs-appellants.

Joan I. Oppenheimer (argued) and Laurie Snyder (briefed), U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, D.C., for the defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-04-00322-KJD.

Before: HAWKINS, SIDNEY R. THOMAS, and RICHARD R. CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, Circuit Judge:

Jonathan J. Hansen ("Hansen"), on behalf of himself and his son, Ethan, appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). Hansen's complaint¹ requested: (1) a religious exemption from social security self-employment tax under 26 U.S.C. ("I.R.C.") § 1402(g) [hereinafter "§ 1402(g)"]; (2) a declaration that, as applied to Hansen, various portions of § 1402(g) violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses; (3) a declaration that he and his son are not required to have or use a social security number ("SSN"); and (4) a declaration that "various treasury regulations" are unconstitutional because they discriminate against Hansen based on his religious beliefs.

Concluding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Hansen's statutory and constitutional § 1402(g) claims, we vacate its Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of these claims and remand with directions to enter an order dismissing the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the dismissal of Hansen's remaining claims.

BACKGROUND

Holding strongly held religious beliefs against having or using an SSN or being involved in the social security system, Hansen sought an exemption from self-employment social security taxes pursuant to § 1402(g). Hansen was denied the exemption because the Social Security Administration and Internal Revenue Service determined he did not meet § 1402(g)'s eligibility requirements. A United States citizen, Hansen was also denied an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number ("ITIN") because ITINs are available only to individuals who are not citizens, nationals, or permanent residents of the United States. See 26 C.F.R. § 301.6109-1(d)(4).²

Hansen thereafter filed the complaint at issue, alleging, inter alia, that he has strong religious beliefs against having an SSN, that there is no law requiring him or his son "to get or have a social security number," and that requiring his son to have an SSN in order to claim a tax deduction violates the First Amendment. Hansen's complaint further alleged that, "since [he] belongs to an organization that has its own provisions for taking care of its dependent members and has strong beliefs against having or using a social security number," he was entitled to an exemption under § 1402(g) and that "many of the provisions of [§ 1402(g)] are unconstitutional as they allow an agency to pick and choose various religions that `meet' the standards and thus, set up an[ ] unfair system of favoring one group over another, in violation of the First Amendment."

The United States then moved to dismiss, and Hansen responded with an opposition and a countermotion for summary judgment. The district court granted the Government's motion to dismiss and denied Hansen's countermotion, as well as Hansen's subsequent motion for reconsideration. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Our review of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is de novo and is limited to the allegations raised in the complaint, which must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005). Dismissal may be affirmed on any ground supported by the record, "even if the district court did not reach the issue or relied on different grounds or reasoning." Williamson v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 208 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir.2000).

We also review the district court's denial of a motion for summary judgment de novo. Moreno v. Baca, 431 F.3d 633, 638 (9th Cir.2005). "Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, [the court] must determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law." Id.

ANALYSIS

I. Hansen's § 1402(g) Claims

A) Jurisdiction

Although the Government did not contest, and the district court did not address, federal jurisdiction over Hansen's § 1402(g) claims, "[t]he defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived," Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.1983), and may "be raised at any time during the proceedings," United States v. Bennett, 147 F.3d 912, 914 (9th Cir.1998) (internal quotations omitted). Furthermore, because federal courts possess "only the power that is authorized by Article III of the Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto[,] . . . every federal appellate court has a special obligation to satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review," even if not contested by the parties. Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986) (internal quotations omitted). If the district court lacked jurisdiction, "we have jurisdiction on appeal, not of the merits but merely for the purpose of correcting the error of the lower court." Id. (internal quotations omitted).

B) Anti-Injunction Act³

The Anti-Injunction Act generally bars any suit "for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax." I.R.C. § 7421(a). The primary purpose of the Act is to protect "the Government's need to assess and collect taxes as expeditiously as possible with a minimum of pre-enforcement judicial interference, and to require that the legal right to the disputed sums be determined in a suit for refund." Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 736, 94 S.Ct. 2038, 40 L.Ed.2d 496 (1974) (internal quotations omitted); Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 920 F.2d 1481, 1484-85 (9th Cir. 1990).

Although Hansen's complaint does not specifically seek an injunction restraining the assessment or collection of tax, the relief he seeks — a declaration that he qualifies for a § 1402(g) exemption or that the portions of § 1402(g) that render him ineligible for an exemption are unconstitutional — would "necessarily preclude the collection of" the challenged tax and therefore falls within the Act's scope.⁴ Bob Jones Univ., 416 U.S. at 732, 94 S.Ct. 2038; Alexander v. Ams. United, Inc., 416 U.S. 752, 760-61, 94 S.Ct. 2053, 40 L.Ed.2d 518 (1974) (rejecting argument that restraint on the assessment of taxes was "at best a collateral effect" of a suit seeking reinstatement of tax-exempt status).

Accordingly, the Anti-Injunction Act precludes federal jurisdiction over Hansen's claims unless he is able to satisfy the judicially created exception to the Act by demonstrating (1) irreparable injury if his case is not heard, and (2) certainty of success on the merits.⁵ Bob Jones Univ., 416 U.S. at 737, 94 S.Ct. 2038; see also United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 255 n. 2, 102 S.Ct. 1051, 71 L.Ed.2d 127 (1982) (explaining that, in the tax context, "injunctive relief is to be granted sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances"). Under this exception, an injunction can issue only "if it is clear that under no circumstances could the Government ultimately prevail." Bob Jones Univ., 416 U.S. at 737, 94 S.Ct. 2038.

Hansen cannot satisfy either prong of this limited exception. First, dismissing his claim will not result in irreparable injury because, contrary to his contentions,

This is not a case in which an aggrieved party has no access at all to judicial review.... [If Hansen] will have taxable income ..., [he] may in accordance with prescribed procedures petition the Tax Court to review the assessment of income taxes. Alternatively, [he] may pay income taxes, or, in their absence, an installment of FICA or FUTA taxes, exhaust the Service's internal refund procedures, and then bring suit for a refund. These review procedures offer petitioner a full, albeit delayed, opportunity to litigate [his claims].

Bob Jones Univ., 416 U.S. at 746, 94 S.Ct. 2038; see, e.g., United States v. Am. Friends Serv. Comm., 419 U.S. 7, 11, 95 S.Ct. 13, 42 L.Ed.2d 7 (1974); Alexander, 416 U.S. at 762, 94 S.Ct. 2053; Church of Scientology, 920 F.2d at 1489; see also I.R.C. §§ 6212-13, 7422; 28 U.S.C § 1346(a)(1). Although these avenues of relief may not be Hansen's preferred route, "[a] taxpayer cannot render an available review procedure an inadequate remedy at law by voluntarily forgoing it." Alexander, 416 U.S. at 762 n. 13, 94 S.Ct. 2053. As such, having failed to pursue all available remedies, Hansen cannot establish he will suffer "irreparable harm" if his § 1402(g) claims are not entertained by the district court.

Second, Hansen's success on the merits is anything but certain. Hansen admits he does not satisfy the plain language of § 1402(g) because he does not oppose private insurance, see § 1402(g)(1), instead arguing that this element of § 1402(g) is unconstitutional and that the First Amendment requires he be granted an exemption.⁶ However, similar First Amendment challenges to social security tax generally and to other clauses in § 1402(g) have been consistently rejected by the courts. See, e.g., Lee, 455 U.S. at 258-61, 102 S.Ct. 1051; Droz v. Comm'r, 48 F.3d 1120, 1123 (9th Cir.1995) (collecting cases). While we...