can be waived.” Id. at 94 n. 1 (citing Atlas Life Ins. Co. v. W.I. Southern, Inc., 306 U.S. 563, 568 n. 1, 59 S.Ct. 657, 83 L.Ed. 987 (1939)). Al though the Howard court concluded the comity argument was waived, it did not provide any specific support for waiver through removal, and the court did not suggest that a federal court therefore had to entertain the action. Moreover, the Howard, court’s observation goes against the weight of the circuits in finding that the principle of comity can be waived in the tax injunction context. Every other federal court to consider the matter has found that a state cannot waive the protection of the principle of comity in state tax matters, even if the state is willing. See Balazik v. Cnty. of Dauphin, 44 F.3d 209, 218 n. 11 (3d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Hardwick v. Cuomo, 891 F.2d 1097, 1104 (3d
holding that although the state taxing authorities themselves  removed the case  the comity rational of mcnary acts as a restriction on the power of the courts holding that the united states constitution does not entitle one state to sovereign immunity in a second states courts and stating a claim of immunity in another sovereigns courts    necessarily implicates the power and authority of a second sovereign its source must be found either in an agreement or in the voluntary decision of the second to respect the dignity of the first as a matter of comity holding that the missouri constitution reserves the power of referendum only to acts of the state legislative assembly and not to acts of a municipality holding that a public corporation in that case a commission created to provide information about the tva is an entity separate from the state and its acts are not acts of the state  within the meaning of the state constitutions prohibition against the state creating new debts holding that courts must distinguish between situations in which the state acts pursuant to its police power and situations in which the state acts merely to protect its status as a creditor