Paulson v. U.S., 887
| Decision Date | 22 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 887,D,887 |
| Citation | 758 F.2d 61 |
| Parties | -1138, 85-1 USTC P 9313 Stephen M. PAULSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. ocket 84-6226. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Stephen M. Paulson, submitted a brief pro se.
Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Paup, Gary R. Allen, Bruce R. Ellisen, Attys., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., and Alan H. Nevas, U.S. Atty., New Haven, Conn., submitted a brief for defendant-appellee.
Before TIMBERS, NEWMAN, and KEARSE, Circuit Judges.
Stephen M. Paulson appeals from a judgment of the District Court for the District of Connecticut (Jose A. Cabranes, Judge) dismissing his complaint under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6703 for refund of a civil penalty assessed against him by the Internal Revenue Service for filing a frivolous income tax return, id. Sec. 6702(a). The return responded to every item of information called for with an asterisk reference to a footnote invoking a series of constitutional amendments.
The appeal is as frivolous as the return for which appellant has been properly assessed a penalty. The Supreme Court has ruled that a self-incrimination claim "against every question on the tax return" would be "virtually frivolous." Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 382 U.S. 70, 79, 86 S.Ct. 194, 199, 15 L.Ed.2d 165 (1965). See also United States v. Schiff, 612 F.2d 73, 77-78, 83 (2d Cir.1979).
Appellant's challenges to the validity of the statute penalizing the submission of frivolous returns are entirely without merit.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, appellant is assessed double costs in this Court plus a reasonable attorney's fee to the appellee in the amount of $2,500, to be paid to the United States within fourteen days of the date of this decision on pain of penalties for contempt. See Schiff v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir.1984) (per curiam). The mandate shall issue forthwith.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fuller v. United States
...(E.D.Wisc.), aff'd mem. 753 F.2d 1077 (7th Cir.1984); Miller v. United States, 577 F.Supp. 980 (N.D.Ind. 1984); Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam); Boomer v. United States, 755 F.2d 696 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Aune v. United States, 582 F.Supp. 1132 (D.Ari......
-
Orange Lake Associates, Inc. v. Kirkpatrick
... ... STANDARD OF REVIEW ... This case comes before us on OLA's appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants. We review ... ...
-
Jolly v. U.S., 84-5594
...courts, that his blanket assertion of his fifth amendment privilege was "frivolous" under section 6702. See Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61, 62 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam); Boomer v. United States, 755 F.2d 696, 697 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Betz v. United States, 753 F.2d 834, 835 ......
-
American President Lines, Inc., In re
...38.25 See note 27 infra.26 Furbee v. Vantage Press, supra note 23, 150 U.S.App.D.C. at 328, 464 F.2d at 837; Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61, 62 (2d Cir.1985); Hagerty v. Clement, 749 F.2d 217, 221-222 (5th Cir.1984); Perkins v. Commissioner, 746 F.2d 1187, 1189 (6th Cir.1984); Oglesb......