of income taxes. Mikulski v. Centerior Energy Corp., 501 F.3d 555, 558 (6th Cir.2007). The Sixth Circuit held that the “expansive application” of § 7422 did not extend to preempt the plaintiffs’ claims because the defendant “was not acting as a collection agent for or on behalf of the IRS.” Id. at 564-65. Even though the defendant in Mikulski never collected the plaintiffs’ taxes, while the Hospital did withhold Plaintiffs’ taxes, the reasoning of the Mikulski court is still applicable here because Plaintiffs are not suing the Hospital for its actions as a tax collector, but for completely separate actions and omissions, which they allege resulted in negative tax consequences. See Davidson v. Henkel Corp., No. 12-CV-14103, 2013 WL 3863981, at *1, *5 (E.D.Mich. July 24, 2013) (<HOLDING>). “The mere fact that the plaintiffs’ damages
holding that the plaintiffs causes of action were preempted because their claims were premised on the existence of an erisa plan holding that claims were preempted where the factual basis of the complaint was the denial of reimbursement of plan benefits holding that defendants who were responsible for collision resulting in pollution of river were liable to commercial fishermen holding that the claims were not preempted by  7422 where the defendants were the plaintiffs employers responsible for tax collection because here plaintiff is not challenging defendants withholding of fica taxes rather he is challenging their failure to follow the special timing rule resulting in a reduction to his benefits and devastating tax consequences holding the state law claims were not preempted