“rightful tax revenue” or to avoid paying state taxes, both of which would reduce the flow of tax revenue. Levy v. Pappas, 510 F.3d 755, 760-62 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 107, 124 S.Ct. 2276, 159 L.Ed.2d 172 (2004). Although the TIA applies only to suits seeking injunctive relief, suits for damages that seek to reduce state tax revenue are barred “by the free-standing principle of comity.” Wright v. Pappas, 256 F.3d 635, 637 (7th Cir.2001) (citations omitted). Mr. Johnson does not seek to tie up the County’s tax revenue or to avoid paying taxes. The taxes originally, but erroneously, assessed on the property were paid at the tax sale. The ultimate relief Mr. Johnson seeks — a tax deed— would not deprive the County of tax revenue. Cf. Levy, 510 F.3d at 762 (<HOLDING>); Wright, 256 F.3d at 637 (holding that the TIA
holding that the essential purpose of use tax is the recoupment of lost sales tax revenue holding that suit by taxpayers alleging that they fell outside statutorily defined class subject to occupation tax so that states attempt to collect such tax from them was illegal was not suit against state holding that property tax was a state tax and was thus disproportionate unreasonable and unfair because of discrepancies in tax rates of up to 400 between school districts holding tia inapplicable to suit challenging the constitutionality of state tax credits where the relief sought would increase not decrease states revenue holding that the tia barred suit alleging loss of and delay in receiving tax refunds because relief sought would operate to reduce the flow of tax revenue to the state