court to tie up a st arred suit where tax purchaser sought to undo tax sale because purchaser was, in effect, seeking a refund of taxes). To the contrary, it appears that Mr. Johnson would be quite content to allow the County to keep the taxes he paid on the property (or more precisely, that Z Financial paid, but that Mr. Johnson presumably reimbursed to Z Financial when he bought the certificate of purchase) and to put the property back on the tax rolls, provided that the County issue him a tax deed. It is the defendants, not Mr. Johnson, who argue that the County is not entitled to the revenue because the property is tax exempt. If Mr. Johnson were to receive his requested relief, the Illinois coffers would be increased, not decreased. See Hibbs, 542 U.S. at 94, 124 S.Ct. 2276 (<HOLDING>); Dunn v. Carey, 808 F.2d 555, 558 (7th
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 essential purpose of use tax is the recoupment of lost sales tax 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 holding younger abstention inapplicable where the suit is in no way designed to annul the results of a state trial and the relief sought is wholly prospective holding that six employees bringing suit under title vii were not in privity with the united states which had brought a previous suit against the same employer because the employees sought a type of relief which the united states had not sought