From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crain v. C.I.R

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Aug 6, 1984
737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984)

Summary

holding that taxpayer's arguments that he "is not subject to the jurisdiction, taxation, nor regulation of the state," that the "Internal Revenue Service, Incorporated" lacks authority to exercise the judicial power of the United States, that the Tax Court is unconstitutionally attempting to exercise Article III powers, and that jurisdiction over his person has never been affirmatively proven were frivolous

Summary of this case from Trowbridge v. Commissioner I. R. S

Opinion

No. 84-4268. Summary Calendar.

August 6, 1984.

Glenn Crain, pro se.

Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Paup, Chief, Appellate Sec., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Fred T. Goldberg, Jr., Chief Counsel, IRS, Gary R. Allen, Douglas G. Coulter, Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the Order of the United States Tax Court.

Before REAVLEY, POLITZ and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.


Glenn Crain appeals from the dismissal of his Tax Court petition challenging the constitutional authority of that body and defying the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service to levy taxes on his income. Crain asserts that he "is not subject to the jurisdiction, taxation, nor regulation of the state," that the "Internal Revenue Service, Incorporated" lacks authority to exercise the judicial power of the United States, that the Tax Court is unconstitutionally attempting to exercise Article III powers, and that jurisdiction over his person has never been affirmatively proven.

We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit. The constitutionality of our income tax system — including the role played within that system by the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax Court — has long been established. We affirm the dismissal of Crain's spurious "petition" and the assessment of a penalty imposed by the Tax Court for instituting a frivolous proceeding. 26 U.S.C. § 6673.

The government asks us to assess penalties against Crain for bringing this frivolous appeal, as is authorized by Fed.R.App.P. 38. In Parker v. C.I.R., 724 F.2d 469, 472 (5th Cir. 1984), we sounded "a cautionary note to those who would persistently raise arguments against the income tax which have been put to rest for years. The full range of sanctions in Rule 38 hereafter shall be summoned in response to a totally frivolous appeal."

We are sensitive to the need for the courts to remain open to all who seek in good faith to invoke the protection of law. An appeal that lacks merit is not always — or often — frivolous. However, we are not obliged to suffer in silence the filing of baseless, insupportable appeals presenting no colorable claims of error and designed only to delay, obstruct, or incapacitate the operations of the courts or any other governmental authority. Crain's present appeal is of this sort. It is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish. The government should not have been put to the trouble of responding to such spurious arguments, nor this court to the trouble of "adjudicating" this meritless appeal.

Accordingly, we grant the government's request. The United States shall recover from appellant Crain twice its cost of this appeal. Additionally, we assess against Crain a damage award of $2000 in favor of the appellee United States.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Crain v. C.I.R

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Aug 6, 1984
737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984)

holding that taxpayer's arguments that he "is not subject to the jurisdiction, taxation, nor regulation of the state," that the "Internal Revenue Service, Incorporated" lacks authority to exercise the judicial power of the United States, that the Tax Court is unconstitutionally attempting to exercise Article III powers, and that jurisdiction over his person has never been affirmatively proven were frivolous

Summary of this case from Trowbridge v. Commissioner I. R. S

holding "we perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit"

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

holding that court is "not obliged to suffer in silence the filing of baseless, insupportable appeals presenting no colorable claims of error and designed only to delay, obstruct, or incapacitate the operations of the courts or any other governmental authority" through "a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish"

Summary of this case from Loofbourrow v. C.I.R.

holding that courts are not obliged to address baseless, insupportable positions designed only to obstruct governmental authority

Summary of this case from Crummey v. Comm'r

finding there is "no need to refute [similarly frivolous] arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit"

Summary of this case from Jacobsen v. Comm'r

finding there is "no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit"

Summary of this case from Vandagriff v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

finding there is "no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit"

Summary of this case from United States of America / Internal Revenue Serv. v. Wankel

finding "no need to refute" frivolous "arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent" because "to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit"

Summary of this case from United States v. Bigley

granting penalties against taxpayer whose spurious arguments on taxation and jurisdiction were "unsupported" and "meritless"

Summary of this case from Batsch v. Comm'r

affirming dismissal of frivolous petition; noting lack of need to address frivolous arguments with extensive reasoning and citations to authority, because doing so might suggest arguments have colorable merit

Summary of this case from Sanderson v. Commissioner

affirming dismissal of tax court petition on basis that petition was a "hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish," and stating that the court should not have been put through the trouble of adjudicating the meritless appeal

Summary of this case from Blakely v. Florida

affirming the district court's rejection of pro se tax defier's challenge to jurisdiction and claim by the IRS

Summary of this case from United States v. Cote

rejecting taxpayer's arguments "that he ‘is not subject to the jurisdiction, taxation, nor regulation of the state,’ that the ‘Internal Revenue Service, Incorporated’ lacks authority to exercise the judicial power of the United States, that the Tax Court is unconstitutionally attempting to exercise Article III powers, and that jurisdiction over his person has never been affirmatively proven" as frivolous

Summary of this case from United States v. Trowbridge

rejecting taxpayer's arguments "that he 'is not subject to the jurisdiction, taxation, nor regulation of the state,' that the 'Internal Revenue Service, Incorporated' lacks authority to exercise the judicial power of the United States, that the Tax Court is unconstitutionally attempting to exercise Article III powers, and that jurisdiction over his person has never been affirmatively proven" as frivolous

Summary of this case from United States v. Trowbridge

rejecting as "frivolous" plaintiff's argument that IRS did not have jurisdiction to levy taxes

Summary of this case from Kiderlen v. Steele

stating that arguments challenging the legality of the tax system have no "colorable merit"

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

sanctioning taxpayer for "spurious" claim that the Tax Court was "unconstitutionally exercising Article III powers"

Summary of this case from Marino v. Brown

describing a tax protestor's appeal as "a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, . . . legalistic gibberish, spurious arguments"

Summary of this case from United States v. Sanders

describing a tax protestor's appeal as "a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, . . . legalistic gibberish, spurious arguments"

Summary of this case from United States v. Sanders

noting that the "constitutionality of our income tax system—including the role played within that system by the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax Court—has long been established" and rejecting as "spurious" plaintiff's argument that the IRS did not have "jurisdiction" to "levy taxes on his income"

Summary of this case from Smith v. Conway

describing a tax protestor's appeal as "a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, . . . legalistic gibberish, spurious arguments"

Summary of this case from United States v. Sanders

dismissing the frivolous claims

Summary of this case from Meuli v. Comm'r

stating that arguments challenging the legality of the tax system have no "colorable merit"

Summary of this case from Russell v. United States

stating "[w]e perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation to precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit"

Summary of this case from United States v. Provost

In Crain, the Fifth Circuit held that government should not be "put to the trouble of responding to such spurious arguments, nor [the] court to the trouble of `adjudicating'... meritless" claims.

Summary of this case from Allison v. Richardson
Case details for

Crain v. C.I.R

Case Details

Full title:GLENN CRAIN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Aug 6, 1984

Citations

737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984)

Citing Cases

Rhoads v. Okamura

It is relevant to point out that some courts "perceive no need to refute [tax protestor] arguments with…

United States v. Gutierrez

Federal courts are hostile to tax protestor arguments. See, e.g., Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440,…