statutes including FUTA, FICA, and SUI. The Court finds that these statutes do not give rise to a private cause of action for the following reasons. For there to be a private right of action, the Court must determine whether (1) the plaintiff is one of the class for whose special benefit the statute was enacted; (2) there is any indication of an explicit or implicit legislative intent to create or deny a private remedy; (3) implying a private remedy is consistent with the underlying purpose of the legislative scheme; and (4) the cause of action is one traditionally relegated to state law, so that it would be inappropriate to infer a cause of action based solely on federal law. See generally, Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975); McClellan , 83 (W.D.N.Y.1988) (<HOLDING>). As the Court finds that the tax statutes at
holding that both federal and state tax statutes are revenue production laws and not enacted for plaintiffs benefit holding the antiinjunction provision inapplicable to a states challenge to the constitutionality of a federal tax exemption provision  103a of the code which exempts from a taxpayers gross income the interest earned on the obligations of any state as amended by  310b1 of the tax equity and fiscal responsibility act of 1982 96 stat 596 because the antiinjunction provision was not intended to bar an action where    congress has not provided the plaintiff with an alternative legal way to challenge the validity of a tax 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 holding that taxpayers failure to follow state requirement that he report change in federal income tax did not except state tax liability from discharge holding that the essential purpose of use tax is the recoupment of lost sales tax revenue