shall issue in any suit, action or proceeding, in any court against this State or against any officer thereof to prevent or enjoin the collection of any contribution sought to be collected under this division.” California Const., Art. XIII, § 32, provides: “No legal or equitable process shall issue in any proceeding in any court against this State or any officer thereof to prevent or enjoin the collection of any tax. After payment of a tax claimed to be illegal, an action may be maintained to recover the tax paid, with interest, in such manner as may be provided by the Legislature.” Despite the apparently unambiguous language of these provisions, the District Court considered the availability of injunctive relief only “uncertain” because of state deci 180, 383 P. 2d 409, 411 (1963) (<HOLDING>). Relying on Aronoff, a District Court of
holding that  1983 is not an exception to the state tax injunction act holding that resident shareholder of s corporation is eligible for tax credit for taxes paid by corporation in another state and noting that this conclusion is consistent with the internal revenue code which provides that shareholders of an s corporation are entitled to a foreign tax credit for their share of foreign income tax paid by an s corporation holding that registration requirements that aid in the collection of taxes are valid exercise of congress power to tax holding that cal const art xiii  15 and cal rev  tax code ann  19081 west 1970 preclude issuance of an injunction to prevent collection of additional income taxes holding that  230e2 applies to californias wrongful use of registered mark law cal bus  profcode  14335 and californias right of publicity law cal civcode  3344