indicating that injunctive relief may be available when the plaintiff challenges the state tax law as being unconstitutional. See Las Animas & San Joaquin Land Co. v. Preciado, 167 Cal. 580, 587, 140 P. 239, 242 (1914) (injunction available to restrain a school district from assessing property taxes on land over which it has no authority); Bueneman v. City of Santa Barbara, 8 Cal. 2d 405, 407, 65 P. 2d 884, 886 (1937) (statutory provision precluding courts from enjoining execution of public laws for public benefit does not apply to claims that a taxing statute is unconstitutional). More recent decisions, however, have held injunctive relief to be precluded. See Modern Barber Colleges, Inc. v. California Employment Stabilization Comm’n, 31 Cal. 2d 720, 723, 192 P. 2d 916, 918 (1948) (<HOLDING>); Aronoff v. Franchise Tax Board, 60 Cal. 2d
holding that the taxpayer met the claim requirement where the taxpayer first filed a timely letter with the irs that requested a refund and subsequently filed a formal refund claim holding that even where taxpayer did not have the financial means to pay all of the taxes owed the taxpayer still willfully evaded tax obligation holding that a provision in the unemployment insurance act similar to  1851 prohibited injunctive relief leaving the taxpayer only with the option to pay the tax and seek a refund holding that a taxpayer only has a refund right after the irs has credited the refund to other underpaid taxes therefore the refund was not part of the bankruptcy estate holding that taxpayer was still required to go through tax refund procedure despite facial constitutional challenge to state intangibles tax