at all for their claims. See McGlotten v. Connolly, 338 F. Supp. 448, 453-454 (DC 1972) (three-judge court) (“The preferred course of raising [such tax exemption and deduction] objections in a suit for refund is not available. In this situation we cannot read the statute to bar the present suit”). See also Tax Analysts and Advocates v. Shultz, 376 F. Supp. 889, 892 (DC 1974) (“Since plaintiffs are not seeking to restrain the collection of taxes, and since they cannot obtain relief through a refund suit, [26 U. S. C.] § 7421(a) does not bar the injunctive relief they seek”). The Court ratified those decisions only insofar as they relied on this limited rationale as the basis for an exception to the statutory bar on adjudication. . See South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U. S. 367, 373 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Even that strict limitation was not strict
holding that the antiinjunction act did not bar south carolinas intergovernmental immunity challenge against tax equity and fiscal responsibility act of 1982 holding the antiinjunction provision inapplicable to a states challenge to the constitutionality of a federal tax exemption provision  103a of the code which exempts from a taxpayers gross income the interest earned on the obligations of any state as amended by  310b1 of the tax equity and fiscal responsibility act of 1982 96 stat 596 because the antiinjunction provision was not intended to bar an action where    congress has not provided the plaintiff with an alternative legal way to challenge the validity of a tax holding that it was not the taxpayers responsibility to pursue the different tax units to which the illegally levied county tax was proportioned as the taxpayer was entitled to recover the full amount of the tax from the county the collecting entity holding that if federal income tax statutes are intended to benefit anyone it is the federal government to whom the withheld tax is to be remitted there is no indication anywhere in the language of the statutes that congress intended to confer rights on employees with respect to the withholding of tax holding that taxpayers failure to follow state requirement that he report change in federal income tax did not except state tax liability from discharge