Ueckert v. C.I.R., No. 83-1782

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore HEANEY, BRIGHT and McMILLIAN; PER CURIAM
Citation721 F.2d 248
Parties83-2 USTC P 9696 Martin J. UECKERT, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.
Decision Date17 November 1983
Docket NumberNo. 83-1782

Page 248

721 F.2d 248
83-2 USTC P 9696
Martin J. UECKERT, Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.
No. 83-1782.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
Nov. 17, 1983.

Page 249

Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Paup, Carleton D. Powell, Thomas A. Gick, Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellee.

Martin J. Ueckert, appellant pro se.

Before HEANEY, BRIGHT and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Martin J. Ueckert appeals pro se from a decision of the tax court upholding a determination by the Commissioner of deficiencies and additions to income tax for the years 1976 and 1977. We affirm.

For each of the years in question, Ueckert submitted to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) signed Forms 1040 containing only his name and address. Ueckert reported no income, credits, deductions, or tax liability. Instead, on each pertinent line of the forms he inserted the word "object." On the back of the 1977 form, Ueckert wrote, "[t]he entry (object) indicates that I assert my privilege to the fifth amendment." The two forms were not accepted by the IRS as valid income tax returns.

Because Ueckert either failed to keep adequate financial records or refused to make them available, the IRS determined the amount of his taxable income by the bank deposit method. 1 The IRS concluded that Ueckert owed a total of $11,082.09 in deficiencies and additions to tax, and sent him a Notice of Deficiency in August 1980. Ueckert responded by filing a petition with the tax court raising a general fifth amendment claim of privilege against self-incrimination, and seeking redetermination of the deficiency. The tax court rejected Ueckert's fifth amendment argument as frivolous in the absence of any pending or threatened prosecution. The tax court also concluded that Ueckert had failed to carry the burden of showing that the deficiencies and additions to tax asserted against him were erroneous. This appeal followed.

The principal issue raised by Ueckert on appeal is whether the tax court erred in rejecting his constitutional objections to completing his tax returns. Ueckert argues that providing income data on his tax forms would subject him to possible prosecution for an unnamed crime in violation of his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. He contends, therefore, that he does not have to provide any financial information until he is granted immunity from all state and federal prosecution.

The tax forms filed by Ueckert for 1976 and 1977 contained no income information

Page 250

from which tax liability could be calculated. They were thus inadequate to satisfy filing requirements and constituted failure to file valid returns. See, e.g., United States v. Pryor, 574 F.2d 440, 442 (8th Cir.1978); United States v. Silkman, 543 F.2d 1218, 1219 (8th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 919, 97 S.Ct. 2185, 53 L.Ed.2d 230 (1977);...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 practice notes
  • Am. Eagle Bank v. Friedman (In re Friedman), Bankruptcy No. 12–bk–40168
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Seventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • December 29, 2015
    ...appreciable, but only imaginary, remote and speculative." In re Connelly, 59 B.R. 421, 433 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1986) (citing Ueckert v. C.I.R., 721 F.2d 248 (8th Cir.1983) ; McCoy v. C.I.R., 696 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir.1983) ).In Connelly, the debtor's attorneys asserted that debtor believed he was u......
  • In re Connelly, No. 84 B 2020.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Seventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • March 27, 1986
    ...the danger of incrimination demonstrated is not real and appreciable, but only imaginary, remote and speculative. See Ueckert v. C.I.R., 721 F.2d 248 (8th Cir.1983); McCoy v. C.I.R., 696 F.2d 1234 (9th Connelly has responded with a Fifth Amendment assertion to every point of inquiry except,......
  • May v. C.I.R., No. 84-1583
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • January 25, 1985
    ...damages); Lukovsky v. Commissioner, 734 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir.1984) (warning of damages and double costs in future); Ueckert v. Commissioner, 721 F.2d 248 (8th Cir.1983) (warning of award of damages and double costs in future); McCoy v. Commissioner, 696 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir.1983) (double costs)......
  • Roach v. National Transp. Safety Bd., No. 83-1549
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • November 5, 1986
    ...apparent the burden of showing such danger exists rests with the claimant of the privilege. Ueckert v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 721 F.2d 248, 250 (8th Cir.1983). The court, not the witness, must determine whether he is Page 1152 entitled to prevail on the privilege. Hoffman, 341 U.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • Am. Eagle Bank v. Friedman (In re Friedman), Bankruptcy No. 12–bk–40168
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Seventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • December 29, 2015
    ...appreciable, but only imaginary, remote and speculative." In re Connelly, 59 B.R. 421, 433 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1986) (citing Ueckert v. C.I.R., 721 F.2d 248 (8th Cir.1983) ; McCoy v. C.I.R., 696 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir.1983) ).In Connelly, the debtor's attorneys asserted that debtor believed he was u......
  • In re Connelly, No. 84 B 2020.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Seventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • March 27, 1986
    ...the danger of incrimination demonstrated is not real and appreciable, but only imaginary, remote and speculative. See Ueckert v. C.I.R., 721 F.2d 248 (8th Cir.1983); McCoy v. C.I.R., 696 F.2d 1234 (9th Connelly has responded with a Fifth Amendment assertion to every point of inquiry except,......
  • May v. C.I.R., No. 84-1583
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • January 25, 1985
    ...damages); Lukovsky v. Commissioner, 734 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir.1984) (warning of damages and double costs in future); Ueckert v. Commissioner, 721 F.2d 248 (8th Cir.1983) (warning of award of damages and double costs in future); McCoy v. Commissioner, 696 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir.1983) (double costs)......
  • Roach v. National Transp. Safety Bd., No. 83-1549
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • November 5, 1986
    ...apparent the burden of showing such danger exists rests with the claimant of the privilege. Ueckert v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 721 F.2d 248, 250 (8th Cir.1983). The court, not the witness, must determine whether he is Page 1152 entitled to prevail on the privilege. Hoffman, 341 U.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT