Unpublished Disposition, 859 F.2d 154 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Richard S. Ramos, pro se, appeals the district court's dismissal of his action against IRS Officer John Veasley. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Ramos failed to file a tax return or to pay his tax liability from 1983-1986. On August 24, 1987, Ramos received a letter from IRS Officer Veasley, ordering him to file a tax return for 1985 and 1986. Officer Veasley also informed Ramos that the IRS would initiate tax collection proceedings unless Ramos filed a tax return and paid his tax liability.

Ramos responded by asserting the IRS lacked jurisdiction over him because his wages were not income. On November 22, 1987, Ramos filed an action in district court, seeking injunctive relief from IRS tax collection activities and a declaratory judgment that his wages were not income. On January 5, 1988, Ramos's action was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Ramos timely appeals.

DISCUSSION

Ramos contends the district court erred in dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We disagree.

The Anti-Injunction Act prohibits suits "for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax." 26 U.S.C. § 7421.

The Internal Revenue Service is authorized to make the inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue Code ("the Code"). See 26 U.S.C. § 6201; Stang v. I.R.S., 788 F.2d 564, 565 (9th Cir. 1986). The Code imposes a tax on all individuals' income, including wages. Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988) (stating that wages are income). The Code requires all individuals with income in excess of statutory limits to file a tax return. See Carter v. Commissioner, 784 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1986); 26 U.S.C. §§ 6011, 6012.

Here, we conclude that as an individual with income exceeding the statutory limits, Ramos must file a tax return. Accordingly, Ramos is subject to the IRS's jurisdiction to inquire about and to determine his tax liability and to assess him for taxes due. Had Ramos wished to allege that the IRS had erroneously or illegally assessed taxes against him, the correct procedure would have been to file a return, pay the tax assessed, and thereafter file a claim for credit or refund. Boyd v. United States, 762 F.2d 1369, 1371 (9th Cir. 1985); 26 U.S.C. § 7422. Because Ramos failed to comply with these requirements, the current action challenging the jurisdiction of the IRS is proscribed by the Anti-Injunction Act as tantamount to a suit to enjoin the IRS's collection efforts. Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing Ramos's action under the Anti-Injunction Act.

Veasley's request for sanctions on appeal is denied.

AFFIRMED.