Cablevision of Connecticut, Inc., 149 F.3d 161, 164 (2d Cir.1998); Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v. Lindner, 59 N.Y.2d 314, 464 N.Y.S.2d 712, 451 N.E.2d 459 (1983). It is clear that the tax statutes at issue are revenue-producing in nature and do not create a special benefit to the individual plaintiffs. The Court agrees with the decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Edgar v. Inland Steel Co., 744 F.2d 1276, 1278 (7th Cir.1984), and finds its rationale applicable to FUTA, FICA and SUI. In Edgar, the Seventh Circuit stated that “[ejmployees have no cause of action against employers to recover wages withheld and paid over to the government in satisfaction of federal income tax liability.” Id. at 1278. See also Deleu v. Scaife, 775 F.Supp. 712, 717-18 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (<HOLDING>); DiGiovanni v. City of Rochester, 680 F.Supp.
holding that both federal and state tax statutes are revenue production laws and not enacted for plaintiffs benefit holding the statutory scheme of two federal laws was not void for vagueness and did not violate equal protection or due process even though the defendants conduct violated both laws holding that the essential purpose of use tax is the recoupment of lost sales tax revenue holding that revenue rule did not bar prosecution of a money laundering scheme to defraud the canadian government of tax revenue 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