Motes v. U.S., 85-8646
| Decision Date | 31 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-8646,85-8646 |
| Citation | 785 F.2d 928 |
| Parties | -1115, 86-1 USTC P 9316 Darrell G. MOTES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Michael L. Paup, Chief, Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Martha B. Brissette, Appellate Section, Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, HILL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Motes and numerous other individuals sued for a refund of income taxes under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346. They advanced an arsenal of arguments, including violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution; that their wages are not income subject to tax but are a tax on property such as their labor; that only public servants are subject to tax liability; that withholding of tax from wages is a direct tax on the source of income without apportionment in violation of the Sixteenth Amendment; that withholding taxes violates equal protection; that they should be allowed to exclude from the amount of wages they receive the cost of maintaining their well-being. In a series of cases this court has held that claims such as these are frivolous. U.S. v. Goetz, 746 F.2d 705 (11th Cir.1984); Simanonok v. Commissioner, 731 F.2d 743, 744 (11th Cir.1984); U.S. v. Vance, 730 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir.1984); Melton v. Kurtz, 575 F.2d 547, 548 (5th Cir.1978). The order of the district court was correct.
This court has imposed sanctions against individuals raising claims such as these. Waters v. Commissioner, 764 F.2d 1389 (11th Cir.1985); Hobson v. Fischbeck, 758 F.2d 579 (11th Cir.1985); Ricket v. U.S., 773 F.2d 1214 (11th Cir.1985). Accordingly we award double costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the government. The case is REMANDED to the district court for a determination of reasonable attorney's fees to the government for the cost of defending this appeal.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pollinger v. Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board, No. 09-12295. Non-Argument Calendar (11th Cir. 1/15/2010)
...that "wages are not income subject to tax but are a tax on property such as . . . labor" is frivolous. Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). The government's claim that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Pollinger's § 7433 claim because he failed ......
-
Taliaferro v. United States
...wages are not taxable income and that the income tax applies only to the federal government and its employees. See Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir. 1986) (determining as frivolous, among other things,arguments that only public servants are subject to tax liability and th......
-
Nelson v. U.S.A
...from employment in the private sector" is "utterly without merit" and "frivolous") (quotation marks omitted); Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir. 1986) (rejecting argument that "only public servants are subject to tax liability"). Indeed, courts have imposed sanctions, even......
-
Nelson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-232
...and "wages" were frivolous and without merit); United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir. 1987); Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir. 1986); Biermann v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 707, 708 (11th Cir. 1985); Waters v. Commissioner, 764 F.2d 1389, 1390 (11th Cir. 1985);......