Holker v. U.S., 84-5076
| Decision Date | 26 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-5076,84-5076 |
| Parties | 84-2 USTC P 9602 Louis E. HOLKER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Louis E. Holker, pro se.
Before HEANEY, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.
Louis E. Holker was assessed a $500 penalty under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6702 for filing a frivolous tax return. He then commenced this suit under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6703(c)(2) for abatement of this assessment. The district court granted the government's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) and we affirm.
In a letter to the IRS, Holker requested a tax refund for 1982, arguing that he owed no tax because he is a "natural individual and unenfranchised freeman" who "neither requested, obtained nor exercised any privilege from any agency of government." Holker enclosed with this letter an unsigned Form 1040 marked "NOT A TAX RETURN--For information only," two W-2 forms marked "INCORRECT," and a Schedule C profit and loss statement. On Schedule C, Holker claims to be in "construction" and he lists, among other things, gross receipts of over $15,000 which were also deducted as labor costs (despite directions in Schedule C not to include salary that the taxpayer paid to himself).
Under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6702, the questions presented to this Court are whether Holker filed "what purports to be a return" but which contains insufficient information by which the substantial correctness of the self-assessment may be judged or which contains information that on its face indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect; and, if so, whether filing the purported return is due to a position which is frivolous. As the district court correctly noted, these are issues of law for the court to decide. See United States v. Grabinski, 727 F.2d 681, 686 (8th Cir.1984) (citing United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 834 (7th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 916, 101 S.Ct. 1360, 67 L.Ed.2d 342 (1981)).
Although Holker denies having filed any document that purports to be a tax return, his argument is meritless. Taxpayers may not obtain refunds without first filing returns. 26 C.F.R. Sec. 301.6402-3(a)(1) (1983). With Holker's refund request to the IRS, he appended a Form 1040 and W-2 statements. Under the circumstances, we can only construe these documents as elements of a purported return. Nichols v. United States, 575 F.Supp. 320, 322 (D.Minn.1983). Any other construction of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. United States, Civ. A. No. 3:84-0722.
...a document filed with the IRS falls within the scope of this statute is a question of law for the Court to decide. Holker v. United States, 737 F.2d 751, 752 (8th Cir.1984). This Court concludes, as a matter of law, that the amended tax-return, filed by Mr. and Mrs. Hill for the calendaryea......
-
Zell v. C.I.R.
...means currently in use to deter protest returns. See, e.g., Baskin v. United States, 738 F.2d 975 (8th Cir.1984); Holker v. United States, 737 F.2d 751 (8th Cir.1984); Rowe v. United States, 583 F.Supp. 1516 (D.Del.1984); Ueckert v. United States, 581 F.Supp. 1262 (D.N.D.1984); Franklet v. ......
-
United States v. Lavigne
... ... United States, 372 F.Supp.2d 1053, 1060 ... (S.D. Ohio 2005) (same); Holker v. United States, ... 737 F.2d 751, 753 (8th Cir. 1984); Herip v. United ... States, ... ...
-
United States v. Lavigne
... ... United States, 372 F.Supp.2d 1053, 1060 ... (S.D. Ohio 2005) (same); Holker v. United States, ... 737 F.2d 751, 753 (8th Cir. 1984); Herip v. United ... States, ... ...