Like many in this Country, the Supreme Court opinion today has many scratching their heads. The Court ruled that the “individual mandate” is a tax in the form of a penalty. The Court seemed to dance around the Constitutional Prohibition against Direct Taxes by saying this wasn’t a direct tax. I liken a “direct tax” to the definition of pornography, basically the Court views it as you’ll know it when you see it. So, the mandate stands and will be collected by the IRS when people who don’t have insurance file their individual income taxes. But the Court then threw everything into the mixer by saying that the “Anti-Injunction Act” does not apply to this “tax”. The “Anti-Injunction Act” essentially says that the collection of tax cannot be restrained . However in this case, if a person doesn’t buy insurance and doesn’t pay the tax, he could in theory get an injunction against its collection until the efficacy of the assessment is determined by the Court. Thus, I can forsee lots of business for Tax lawyers seeking injunctions against the IRS to prevent collection of this tax claiming all sorts of defenses (including perhaps insolvency, lack of intent (since penalties generally require “wilfulness”), incorrect amount on the assessment, or lack of Section 6320, 6330 due process before collections actions including disagreements as to collection alternatives. Thanks to the Supreme Court for giving the Tax bar a shot in the arm.