From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Ward

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Jan 19, 1988
833 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1988)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that taxpayer's argument that the court lacks jurisdiction because the taxpayer does not live within a territory "utterly without merit"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Sieloff
See 14 Summaries

Opinion

No. 87-3271. Non-Argument Calendar.

December 16, 1987. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied January 19, 1988.

Lowell H. Becraft, Jr., Huntsville, Ala., for defendant-appellant.

Robert W. Merkle, U.S. Atty., Bruce Hinshelwood, Asst. U.S. Atty., Orlando, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before HILL, FAY and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Arthur D. Ward was convicted of three counts of tax evasion ( 26 U.S.C. § 7201), and two counts of making false statements or claims to a federal agency. 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Ward makes three arguments on this appeal. First, he suggests that the United States has jurisdiction over only Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the states, and the territories and possessions of the United States. Secondly, he interprets the term "individual" within the Internal Revenue Code to apply only to those individuals located within this jurisdiction of the United States. Ward reaches this twisted conclusion by misinterpreting a portion of the Income Tax Code. The 1913 Act defined the words "state" or "United States" to "include" United States territories and the District of Columbia; Ward asks this court to interpret the word "include" as a term of limitation, rather than of definition. Finally, Ward maintains that the only persons expressly and statutorily liable for income tax are the withholding agents of nonresident aliens and foreign corporations.

We find each of appellant's contentions to be utterly without merit. The district court properly denied Ward's motions for acquittal, and properly refused to instruct the jury as to Ward's theory of his defense. The opinion of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

Summaries of

United States v. Ward

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Jan 19, 1988
833 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1988)

holding that taxpayer's argument that the court lacks jurisdiction because the taxpayer does not live within a territory "utterly without merit"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Sieloff

finding "utterly without merit" the claim that the Income Tax Code limits the definition of "United States" to the District of Columbia and the aforementioned territories

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Morgan

finding appellant's contention that "the United States has jurisdiction over only Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the states, and the territories and possessions of the United States" to be "utterly without merit"

Summary of this case from United States v. Morrison

finding defendant's argument that he was not an "individual" located within the jurisdiction of the United States to be "utterly without merit"

Summary of this case from United States v. Reilly

finding similar contentions "to be utterly without merit"

Summary of this case from Brown v. District Director

affirming tax evasion conviction and noting that claim that federal law applies only to the District of Columbia, federal enclaves within States and United States territories is "utterly without merit"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Webb

rejecting the argument as "utterly without merit"

Summary of this case from Callihan v. Comm'r

stating that a taxpayer's argument that withholding agents are the only persons statutorily liable for the income tax was "utterly without merit"

Summary of this case from Balice v. Comm'r

describing as "utterly without merit" contentions that federal jurisdiction extends only to Washington, D.C. and federal territories and enclaves, that federal income tax laws do not apply to residents of the states, and that only the withholding agents of nonresident aliens and foreign corporations are subject to federal income tax

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Korman

describing as "utterly without merit" contentions that federal jurisdiction extends only to Washington, D.C. and federal territories and enclaves, that federal income tax laws do not apply to residents of the states, and that only the withholding agents of nonresident aliens and foreign corporations are subject to federal income tax

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Korman

In Ward, a case in which Becraft served as defendant's appellate counsel, see supra, n. 1, the Eleventh Circuit characterized as "utterly without merit" the identical argument raised by Becraft here regarding the applicability of the federal tax laws to resident United States citizens. 833 F.2d at 1539.

Summary of this case from In re Becraft

stating that a taxpayer's argument that withholding agents are the only persons statutorily liable for the income tax was "utterly without merit"

Summary of this case from Hill v. Comm'r

interpreting "include" as a term of limitation is "utterly without merit"

Summary of this case from Tinnerman v. Commissioner

In United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1022, 108 S.Ct. 1576, 99 L.Ed.2d 891 (1989), a tax protestor, under similar circumstances, attempted to invoke the non-resident alien exemption from income taxation.

Summary of this case from In re Weatherley
Case details for

United States v. Ward

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ARTHUR D. WARD…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Jan 19, 1988

Citations

833 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1988)

Citing Cases

United States v. Morrison

D. Fourth Objection Defendants Morrison and Potts object to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the…

In re Bertelt

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has considered the contention that a resident of one of the states…

42 Citing Cases