Opinion
No. 57797-2-I.
December 18, 2006.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 05-2-28276-2, Michael Heavey, J., entered December 23, 2005.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Marty Griggs (Appearing Pro Se), P.o. Box 173 Sagle, ID, 83860 Counsel.
for Respondent(s), Susan Kathleen Stahlfeld Miller Nash LLP 601 Union St Ste 4400 Seattle, WA, 98101-1367.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
In compliance with a mandatory legal duty, Alaska Airlines withheld federal income taxes from Marty Griggs' wages. Even though lawsuits by employees against employers for withholding federal taxes are statutorily barred, Griggs filed this action against Alaska Airlines and its president for withholding federal taxes. The trial court properly dismissed Griggs' claims on summary judgment and imposed sanctions for a frivolous lawsuit. We affirm the trial court's decision and impose sanctions for a frivolous appeal.
FACTS
Alaska Airlines employed appellant Marty Griggs from 1984 to November 2004. During the course of his employment, Griggs repeatedly demanded that Alaska Airlines stop withholding federal income taxes from his paycheck.
Starting in 2001, Griggs submitted several W-4 forms to Alaska Airlines claiming that he was totally exempt from paying federal income tax. By directives dated August 24, 2001, and March 8, 2003, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) notified Alaska Airlines that it had rejected Griggs' claimed exemption and ordered the company to continue withholding federal income taxes until further notice. No evidence in the record indicates that the IRS ever cancelled these directives.
In 2004, Alaska Airlines offered employees a voluntary severance package that provided for a severance payment in exchange for voluntary resignation from the company. In October 2004, Griggs executed an agreement accepting the company's offer. With a few exceptions not relevant here, the agreement required Griggs to waive all claims against the company and promise not to file any action against Alaska Airlines and its officers. On October 24, 2005, Griggs filed an amended complaint seeking damages from Alaska Airlines and its president for the amount of federal taxes withheld from his paycheck, 10,000 ounces of 24-karat gold as punitive damages, and an order enjoining Alaska Airlines from withholding federal taxes from any of its employees.
On December 23, 2005, the trial court dismissed Griggs' claims on summary judgment. The court concluded that Griggs' claims were statutorily barred and that Griggs had previously released the defendants from the claims and promised not to sue. The court also found that the action was frivolous and awarded attorney fees and costs under RCW 4.84.185 and CR 11. Griggs' subsequent "Motion to Vacate Void Judgment or Order Pursuant to CR 60(b)(5)" was also denied.
DECISION
The crux of Griggs' arguments on appeal is that the IRS lacked authority to order Alaska Airlines to withhold federal taxes and that Alaska Airlines was therefore liable for wrongfully depriving him of his property. Griggs is incorrect. Contrary to Griggs' repeated assertions, federal regulations require an employer to comply with an IRS directive to disregard an employee's W-4 withholding form as defective. Bright v. Bechtel Petroleum, Inc., 780 F.2d 766, 770 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1986). "Under 26 U.S.C. Â § 3402, an employer has a mandatory duty to withhold federal income tax from an employee's wages where required by applicable regulations." Bright, 780 F.2d at 770; see also Maxfield v. United States Postal Service, 752 F.2d 433 (9th Cir. 1984). The Internal Revenue Code expressly provides that an employer is liable to the IRS for the payment of withheld federal taxes and "shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment." 26 U.S.C. Â § 3403. Accordingly, "suits by employees against employers for tax withheld are `statutorily barred.'" Bright, 780 F.2d at 770 (quoting Chandler v. Perini Power Constructors, Inc., 520 F. Supp. 1152, 1156 (D.N.H. 1981)).
On appeal, Griggs fails to assign error to or address the trial court's alternative determination that he waived any claims against Alaska Airlines under the terms of his severance agreement.
Griggs' appellate brief consists primarily of quotations from various authorities, all of which are taken out of context. See, e.g., Americopters, LLC v. FAA, 441 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2006) (addressing actions by the Federal Aviation Administration); Ray v. United States, 453 F.2d 754, 197 Ct. Cl. 1 (1972) (whether military board had authority to refund amounts for withheld taxes following retroactive correction of a serviceman's retirement record); United States v. Malinowski, 347 F. Supp. 347 (E.D. Pa. 1972) (criminal prosecution for providing fraudulent information on W-4 form). If Griggs has a remedy for withholding that exceeded his federal tax liability, it lies elsewhere. See Maxfield, 752 F.2d at 434. The trial court correctly determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that Griggs' claims were frivolous.
Alaska Airlines requests an award of attorney fees for a frivolous appeal under RAP 18.9(a). An appeal is frivolous "if the appellate court is convinced that the appeal presents no debatable issues upon which reasonable minds could differ and is so lacking in merit that there is no possibility of reversal." In re Marriage of Foley, 84 Wn. App. 839, 847, 930 P.2d 929 (1997). That standard is satisfied here.
The trial court's dismissal of Griggs' claims on summary judgment and denial of the motion to vacate are affirmed; Alaska Airlines' request for attorney fees on appeal is granted subject to compliance with RAP 18.1(d).
FOR THE COURT: