the claims alleged here. The Supreme Court refuses to recognize standing based on a plaintiffs status merely as a taxpayer, absent special circumstances. Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 131 S.Ct. 1436, 1442, 179 L.Ed.2d 523 (2011). The Supreme Court “has rejected the general proposition that an individual who has paid taxes has a ‘continuing, legally cognizable interest in ensuring that those funds are not used by the Government in a way that violates the Constitution.’ ” Id. at 1442-43 (quoting Hein v. Freedom From Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 599, 127 S.Ct. 2553, 168 L.Ed.2d. 424 (2007)). This is known as the “rule against taxpayer standing.” Id. at 1443; see also DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 346, 126 S.Ct. 1854, 164 L.Ed.2d 589 (2006) (<HOLDING>). There is, however, a “narrow exception” to
holding the rule against taxpayer standing applies both to federal taxpayers and state taxpayers challenging state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as state taxpayers holding that taxpayers failure to follow state requirement that he report change in federal income tax did not except state tax liability from discharge recognizing that taxpayers are not entitled to interest on cash bonds holding that an appeal by taxpayers in a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the government from collecting income tax deficiencies was mooted because the taxpayers had paid the deficiencies pending the appeal holding that the nature of the taxpayers legal interest in the subject property is determined by reference to state law