
    In re: Michael CAREY and Leone Carey, Debtors, Michael Carey and Leone Carey, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee.
    No. 11-60001.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 26, 2012.
    Michael Carey, Redding, CA, pro se.
    Kenneth W. Rosenberg, Adam D. Strait, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Appellee.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael and Leone Carey appeal pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the Careys’ adversary proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly dismissed the Careys’ adversary proceeding seeking to enjoin the government from collecting federal tax liabilities because, under the Anti Injunction Act, the court lacked jurisdiction over the proceeding. See 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) (unless permitted by statute, “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person”); Sokolow v. United States, 169 F.3d 663, 665 (9th Cir.1999) (an action that does not fall within one of the limited exceptions to the Anti Injunction Act “must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction”); Maxfield v. U.S. Postal Serv., 752 F.2d 433, 434 (9th Cir.1984) (the Anti Injunction Act is “strictly enforced”).

The Careys’ contentions that the bankruptcy court discharged their tax liability and that the bankruptcy court failed to protect its judgment from collateral attack from the district court are unsupported by the record.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     