Jesus and the Anti-Injunction Act

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Biblical scholars have debated the story of the resurrection for millennia. Some read the story literally, others with greater consideration to the purpose the story-writers had in reciting the story. <br><br>In the recent case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. the high priests of the law declared that section 7421 (the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA)) did not bar federal courts from hearing a challenge to what Congress called a penalty, codified in section 5000A. The penalty will be imposed on taxpayers who fail to obtain requisite health insurance starting in 2014. <br><br>What is striking to me is the Supreme Court’s literalist approach. The nub of its reasoning is that the AIA only applies to suits involving a tax, and Congress called section 5000A a penalty. Although I understand the desire of all parties — and apparently all the Supreme Court justices — to get to the fun constitutional stuff, the myopic focus on the word ‘‘tax’’ obscures the law. Although the
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1335-1348
JournalTax Notes
StatePublished - Sep 10 2012


Dive into the research topics of 'Jesus and the Anti-Injunction Act'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this