Farmer v. Rountree, 13198
| Decision Date | 13 March 1958 |
| Docket Number | 13199.,No. 13198,13198 |
| Citation | 252 F.2d 490 |
| Parties | Fyke FARMER, Appellant, v. J. M. ROUNTREE, Director of Internal Revenue, et al., Appellees. Fyke FARMER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Fyke Farmer, Nashville, Tenn., in pro per.
Sheldon I. Fink, Washington, D. C., Charles K. Rice, Lee A. Jackson, A. F. Prescott and Sheldon I. Fink, Washington, D. C., Fred Elledge, Jr., U. S. Atty. Nashville, Tenn., on the brief, for appellees.
Before McALLISTER, MILLER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
These are appeals from judgments of the District Court dismissing appellant's complaint and granting appellee's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Appellant filed his complaint for judgment declaring his immunity, in substantial part, from income tax liability for the year 1949, and to enjoin collection of the income taxes assessed against him for that year.
He based his claim on the ground that the military and foreign policies of the United States, since World War II, including the prosecution of the Korean War, were designed and carried out in violation of international law, and were, therefore, illegal and void; and that he had the right to refuse payment of two-thirds of his income tax for the reason that the said revenue had been illegally appropriated by Congress for such illegal purposes, and that only one-third of such revenue had been appropriated for the legal and Constitutional functions of the government. The district court held that this claim involved the resolution of political questions, and that courts had no right or authority to resolve such questions; that, under the Constitution of the United States, Congress is vested with the exclusive right to levy taxes and to appropriate public revenue for the common defense and general welfare of the country, and to provide for, and maintain the Army and Navy; and that it has the exclusive authority to determine the requirements of national defense and the amount of tax revenue to be used for defense or military purposes. The court further held that the foreign policy of the United States is the exclusive province of the executive and legislative branches of the government; and that the court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims set forth by appellant. With respect to a contention that the prior order of a district judge, overruling the motions to dismiss,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sudberry v. Warden, Southern Ohio Corr. Facility
...v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co., No. 2:99cv1300, 2001 WL 1681130, at *4 (S.D.Ohio Sept. 25, 2001) (Sargus, J.) (citing Farmer v. Rountree, 252 F.2d 490, 491 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 357 U.S. 906, 78 S.Ct. 1150, 2 L.Ed.2d 1156 (1958)). Here, the Court assumes, without deciding, that the law-o......
-
United States v. Mitchell
...in these activities would we be guilty morally or legally.1 "1. Fyke Farmer, a noted lawyer, fought and lost Fyke Farmer v. United States, 252 F.2d 490 (6 Cir. 1958), affirming 149 F.Supp. 327 (M.D.Tenn.1956) when he tried to use international law as a basis for tax refusal during the Korea......
-
Egnal v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...v. President, supra; Kalish v. United States, supra; Farmer v. Rountree, 149 F.Supp. 327 (M.D. Tenn. 1956), affd. per curiam 252 F.2d 490 (6th Cir. 1958), cert. denied 357 U.S. 906 (1958); Susan Jo Russell, supra; Abraham J. Muste, supra. As to taxation, this principle follows a fortiori fr......
-
Lee v. The Vanderbilt Univ.
...Ohio Sept. 25, 2001) (“[O]rders pertaining to motions to dismiss do not constitute the law of the case.”) (citing Farmer v. Rountree, 252 F.2d 490, 491 (6th Cir. 1958)). Therefore, the law-of-the case doctrine does not apply here, and the Court will consider the Motion on the merits. Thus, ......