Moreover, the lawful exercise of the Government’s tax collection powers does not amount to a taking. See U.S. Shoe Corp. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed.Cir.2002) (the ruling that imposition of the federal income tax does not constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment); see also Branch ex rel. Me. Nat’l Bank v. United States, 69 F.3d 1571, 1576-77 (Fed.Cir.1995) (“enforcement action [of the constitutional tax assessment], including seizure of the property, could not be challenged as a taking”); see also First Atlas Corp. v. United States, 23 Cl.Ct. 137, 141 (1991), aff'd per curiam, 954 F.2d 733 (Fed.Cir.1992) (concluding that the filing of a notice of a hen, standing alone, does not constitute a taking); Castillo Morales v. United States, 19 Cl.Ct. 342, 345 (1990) (<HOLDING>). In this ease, the Complaint alleges that the
holding that a subsequent action was not barred because the initial court did not have jurisdiction over the claim holding that irs may not levy against bank account of delinquent taxpayer held in tenancy by the entirety where taxpayer did not have unilateral right to withdraw funds holding that the court of claims did have jurisdiction over plaintiffs statutory claim for back pay including arguments based on the first amendment holding that the court does not have jurisdiction over takings claims because where  a taxpayer disputes an irs levy on its property the appropriate course of action is a direct challenge of the levy not the prosecution of a fifth amendment claim holding that the court of claims did not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs first amendment claim of improper removal