any of these actions and omissions actually occurred and whether they created liability for the Hospital are separate questions to be answered later. The Hospital argues that the instant actions are disguised tax refund suits, citing cases. However, the instant actions are distinguishable from the cases cited by the Hospital, because in all of those cases, the defendants’ alleged liability arose directly from their collection of the taxes at issue, while here, the Hospital’s alleged liability does not. Cf. Matthew, 2012 WL 5834917, at *1, *5 (deeming state law claims to be for “disguised refunds of taxes” where the plaintiffs sued a telephone provider for allegedly collecting taxes on calls that were not taxable); Umland v. PLANCO Fin’l Serv., Inc., 542 F.3d 59, 65, 67-68 (3d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Brennan, 134 F.3d at 1408, 1410, 1414
holding that an employees private arbitration agreement with her employer precluded her from filing suit against the employer under the adea holding that a claim was for a tax refund where the plaintiff alleged that her employer withheld its own portion of fica taxes from her paychecks holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment holding that a plaintiff in a sex discrimination suit did not suffer an adverse employment action where her employer withheld one days pay and it was not reinstated holding that an employee who claims to have been terminated by her employer for having exercised her right to disability benefits raised a cognizable claim under  510 of erisa notwithstanding the fact that she received the benefits from her employer prior to termination