Birt v. Consolidated School Dist. No. 4

• Decision Date: 10 March 1992
• Docket Number: No. WD,WD
• Citation: 829 S.W.2d 538
• Parties: 75 Ed. Law Rep. 587 Fairy R. BIRT, Appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 4, Dr. Tony L. Stansberry, Dr. Jim Bliss, Dr. James W. Chrisman, Roger D. Tisch, and Donald C. Earnshaw, Respondents. 44446.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 538

829 S.W.2d 538

75 Ed. Law Rep. 587

Fairy R. BIRT, Appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 4, Dr. Tony L. Stansberry Dr. Jim Bliss, Dr. James W. Chrisman, Roger D Tisch, and Donald C. Earnshaw, Respondents.

No. WD 44446.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Western District.

March 10, 1992.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to

Supreme Court Denied

April 28, 1992.

Application to Transfer Denied June 2, 1992.

Fairy R. Birt, pro se.

Terry L. Karnaze, Kansas City, for Consolidated School Dist. No. 4, Dr. Tony L. Stansberry, Dr. Jim Bliss, Dr. James Chrisman, and Roger D. Tisch.

Jimmie D. James, Independence, for Donald Earnshaw.

Before FENNER, P.J., and ULRICH and SPINDEN, JJ.

FENNER, Presiding Judge.

Appellant, Fairy Birt, appeals from the grant by the trial court of a Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of respondents, Consolidated School District No. 4 (CSD), and certain of its employees, Dr. Tony L. Stansberry, Dr. Jim Bliss, Dr. James Chrisman, Roger D. Tisch and Donald C. Earnshaw.

Ms. Birt has been employed for over 11 years by the Grandview Senior High School as a learning disabilities teacher. As a full time employee of the school district, Ms. Birt is a member of the Public School Retirement System, an actuarial reserve, joint contributing program, to which members and employers make matching contributions. § 169.030, RSMo 1986. Because of their employment with the School District, members contribute only to the Retirement System and do not contribute to the Social Security System. 26 U.S.C. § 418(d) (1988). Pursuant to her employment, Ms. Birt's yearly salary was paid in twelve monthly installments. From her wages, CSD withheld federal income taxes, state income taxes and her contribution to the Retirement System.

On June 26, 1986, Ms. Birt sent to CSD an "Asseveration in Lieu of Form W-4" in which she canceled and revoked any and all previously submitted Forms W-4. On September 30, 1986, Ms. Birt sent CSD a document which she entitled "Asseveration of Revocation and Rescission of Social Security Number and Other Forms and Documents for Cause" by which she revoked and rescinded her Social Security number, revoked her "contract" or "membership" with the federal government and renounced all government privileges and benefits. Ms. Birt apparently sent both "Asseveration" documents to CSD in an attempt to fulfill her religious beliefs which she claims prohibit any relationship with the federal government.

In response to her submission, Donald C. Earnshaw, attorney for CSD, sent a letter to Ms. Birt informing her that the School District would be required by law to withhold federal income taxes as if she were claiming zero dependents, since she no longer had a valid Form W-4. The letter also informed Ms. Birt that CSD would continue to use her Social Security number for purposes of identification when remitting the required tax payments and contributions to the Retirement System. CSD continued to deduct federal and state income taxes from Ms. Birt's wages in the amount designated by federal and state statutes and regulations.

In September, 1989, CSD received a Notice of Levy from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) demanding that CSD pay the sum of $126.70, as Ms. Birt had failed to pay said amount. CSD deducted the amount requested from Ms. Birt's wages and paid it to the IRS.

On November 7, 1989, Ms. Birt filed a Petition for Injunctive Relief with accompanying suggestions in support against CSD, seeking a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction to enjoin CSD from withholding federal income taxes from her wages and from using and/or associating a Social Security number with her name. This action was assigned the number CV89-28377. On the same day, Ms. Birt filed a document entitled Complaint to Enforce Provisions of Contracts, To Enforce Due Process and To Recover Property Taken Through Acts of Fraud and Trespass, along with supporting suggestions, against CSD, Roger D. Tisch, Dr. Tony L. Stansberry, Dr. James Chrisman, Dr. Jim Bliss and Donald C. Earnshaw. In said Complaint, Ms. Birt complained about the withholding of federal and state income taxes, the use of her Social Security number in withholding such taxes and funds for the Missouri Retirement System and honoring the IRS Notice of Levy.

The trial court entered a Show Cause Order on November 14, 1989, directing CSD to show cause why the relief requested by Ms. Birt should not be granted. The Order also stated that the complaint and suggestions would be treated as exhibits in support of the petition for injunctive relief, as Ms. Birt had essentially combined two lawsuits in one filing.

On December 26, 1989, Ms. Birt sought leave to voluntarily dismiss her Complaint as to all individually named defendants. Pursuant to this request, the trial court entered an order dismissing said individually named defendants. Also, on December 26, 1989, Ms. Birt filed a second Complaint which listed all defendants formerly named in the first Complaint and added twenty-five "Doe" defendants. Ms. Birt asserted essentially the same allegations in her second Complaint as she did in her first Complaint. This second Complaint was assigned the number CV89-32689. Subsequently, the court ordered that Case numbers CV89-28377 and CV89-32689 be consolidated for all purposes.

It is noted that throughout the course of this litigation, as well as on appeal, the record reveals that Donald C. Earnshaw was individually represented by counsel. All other named defendants were jointly represented by separate counsel. On November 17, 1990, following the filing of answers, as well as Motions for Summary Judgment by all named defendants, the trial court entered an order sustaining the Motions for Summary Judgment as to all defendants in both numbered cases and overruled all other pending motions.

As best as can be determined, it appears Ms. Birt raises eight points on appeal. The pro se brief filed by Ms. Birt clearly evidences her lack of comprehension of well established principles of law. However, this court will attempt to address Ms. Birt's allegations of error, in an effort to better enable her to understand her misconceptions, and with the hope that she will discontinue her flagrant abuse of the legal system.

Ms. Birt's basic complaint is that she is not subject to the provisions of federal and state law which require withholding of income taxes. She also takes issue with the continued use of her Social Security number for identification purposes. She argues that summary judgment was improvidently granted with respect to all respondents as to this complaint.

Pursuant to Rule 74.04(c), summary judgment shall be entered where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Ms. Birt apparently believes, albeit mistakenly, that since she revoked her Forms W-4 and has denounced her U.S citizenship, CSD was without authority to withhold any amounts from her wages and that until she voluntarily signs a Form W-4 or files a Form 1040, she is a non-taxpayer, not subject to withholding of taxes. Ms. Birt claims herself to be governed by "natural law" and not subject to federal law, apparently by virtue of the fact that she believes she has revoked her "contract" or "membership" with the federal government. Thus, she argues that CSD has forced her to be a taxpayer in the absence of a contract. Ms. Birt's argument is completely and totally devoid of merit.

The withholding of federal and state income taxes is required by law. By withholding taxes from Ms. Birt's wages, CSD, as her employer, complied with its mandatory duty. 26 U.S.C. § 3402(a)(1) (1988) requires every employer making payment of wages to deduct and withhold upon such wages. Further, 26 U.S.C. § 3401(e) (1988) provides that if no withholding exemption certificate is in effect as required by § 3402(f)(2) (1988), then "the number of withholding exemptions claimed shall be considered to be zero." CSD acknowledges Ms. Birt's revocation of her Form W-4, but correctly informed her that under the circumstances, federal income taxes were required to be withheld as though she were claiming zero exemptions. Ms. Birt's attempt to hold CSD, and those acting on its behalf, liable for performing its legal obligation has no merit.

In addition, Ms. Birt was not entitled to injunctive relief. The Anti-Injunctive Act prohibits suits for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax, as a matter of law. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) (1988):

[N]o suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.

The appropriate method to challenge disputed sums of federal tax withheld is by way of a suit for refund filed with the Secretary of Treasury. 26 U.S.C. 7422 (1988). Ms. Birt has an adequate remedy at law. Therefore, her requested equitable relief in the form of an injunction is inappropriate. See, Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 7, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 1129, 8 L.Ed.2d 292 (1962).

Likewise, Ms. Birt is subject to withholding of state income taxes. Pursuant to § 143.011, RSMo 1986, a tax is imposed upon the income of every resident of the State of Missouri. Every employer must deduct and withhold from its employees' wages such amounts as are prescribed by regulations of the Director of Revenue. § 143.191, RSMo Supp.1991. Thus, as Ms. Birt's employer, the law mandates that CSD deduct and withhold state income taxes from her wages. Further, § 143.241, RSMo 1986, provides in pertinent part:

No employee shall have any right of action against his employer in respect to any money deducted and withheld from his wages and paid over to the director of revenue in compliance or in good faith compliance with sections 143.011 to 143.996.

Ms. Birt is...