91 F3d 148 Joeckel v. Internal Revenue Service
91 F.3d 148
78 A.F.T.R.2d 96-5627
Timothy H. JOECKEL; Dawn L. Joeckel; Kenneth E. Thorne;
Linda Secora; Frank Secore; Roy Nuttleman; Cecilia
Nuttleman; Reynold J. Spulak; Gordon D. Whitten; Barbara
A. Whitten; Marvin Eugene Simon; Frank Dahlstrom; Earle
C. Baillie; Steve Tolstedt; Don Offenbacker; Marilyn A.
Offenbacker; Leslie Cornwell; Cleve W. Stutzman; Arlene
M. Stutzman; Edwin L. Johnson; Maxine M. Johnson; Laverne
H. Meints; Chris L. Meints; James A. Davis, Jr.; Joan B.
David; Lloyd Francis; Kenneth E. Schroeder; Norma L.
Schroeder; James L. Gustafson; Janis A. Gustafson; Edward
J. Axmann; Donna J. Axmann; Wilfred Wagher; Charlie
Crofutt; Denise Crofutt; Ray E. Muhlbach; Louise M.
Miller; Dale L. Mattley; Erlyn M. Mattley; Dorothy
Bredthauer; Ted Daggett; Mona Daggett; Robert J. Jones;
Robert E. Spurgeon; Barbara M. Spurgeon; Andrew M.
Jaskiewicz; Larry S. Riederer; Orlan Meske; Ladonna
Meske; Jeanne M. Thorne; William J. Fritz; Craig R.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Collector; John Does, 1 through
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted July 1, 1996.
Filed July 5, 1996.
NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that they are not precedent and generally should not be cited unless relevant to establishing the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, the law of the case, or if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue and no published opinion would serve as well.
Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
Appellants are a group of Nebraska citizens who claim that they are neither citizens nor residents of the United States and are thus not required to pay federal income taxes, and assert that defendants have wrongfully refused to recognize their status. The district court1 dismissed their action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We conclude the judgment of the district court was correct and that an opinion would lack precedential value. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
Accordingly we affirm the district court's judgment.2