Madison v. U.S., 84-3379
| Citation | 758 F.2d 573 |
| Decision Date | 19 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-3379,84-3379 |
| Parties | -1363 Gerald M. MADISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Robert W. Merkle, U.S. Atty., Lynne L. England, Tampa, Fla., Michael L. Paup, Glenn L. Archer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gary R. Allen, Patricia A. Willing, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Tax Div., Chief, Appellate Section, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion Feb. 8, 1985, 11 Cir., 1985, 752 F.2d 607).
Before TJOFLAT, HILL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Gerald Madison files a pro se petition for rehearing arguing that the federal government's tax collecting apparatus (the Department of Treasury, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Internal Revenue Service, etc.) has no power or authority to impose any obligation upon him whatsoever. In doing so, he misidentifies this contention as going to the "jurisdiction" of this arm of the government to act over his person and this subject matter.
Having invoked the magic word of "jurisdiction," appellant proceeds into citations of cases outlining the considerations with which a court is faced when its jurisdiction is questioned. None of these cases are at all apposite, because appellant raises no questions as to the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Indeed, he invoked the jurisdiction of the courts by filing this lawsuit, under I.R.C. Sec. 6073(c), for a refund of a penalty assessed against him for filing a frivolous return.
The assertion that the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service have no power over this appellant and this subject matter is frivolous. Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1, and may "lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states." U.S. Const. amend. XVI. The Treasury Department and Commissioner of Internal Revenue are charged with administering and enforcing the collection of taxes imposed by Congress. See I.R.C. Secs. 7801, 7802.
This petition for rehearing is due to be denied without the above elaboration. However, in view of the fact that this contention appears to be often raised in litigation of this sort, it was thought best to lay it to rest in a published...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lefebvre v. C.I.R., 86-1966
...Edwards v. Commissioner, 680 F.2d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir.1982), and contrary taxpayer assertions are frivolous. Madison v. United States, 758 F.2d 573, 574 (11th Cir.1985).4 Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17 (2d Cir.1985) (double costs and $2,000 attorney fee award); United States v. Wissig,......
- Kazadi v. State
-
Kazadi v. State
...804 F.2d at 281; Sababu, 891 F.2d at 1325; Cosby, 529 F.2d at 148; Price, 577 F.2d at 1366; Grandsinger, 332 F.2d at 81; Miller, 758 F.2d at 573; Ganas, 537 S.E.2d at 762; Bitz, 460 P.2d at 378; McCoy, 361 A.2d at 243; Cordero, 456 A.2d at 841; Dahlgren, 512 A.2d at 915. As explained above,......
-
Tinnerman v. Comm'r Of Internal Revenue
...basis for sanctions by all courts that have reviewed them. See, e.g., United States v. Morse, supra at 1132-1133; Madison v. United States, 758 F.2d 573, 574 (11th Cir. 1985). Petitioner's contentions are merely stale and recycled versions of unsuccessful arguments that he has made since 19......