Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

705 F.2d 1017

Docket No. 83-1070.

Lively v. Commissioner

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted April 28, 1983.

Decided May 2, 1983.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied June 8, 1983.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1983-05-02

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The doors of this courthouse are of course open to good faith appeals of what are honestly thought to be errors of the lower courts. But we can no longer tolerate abuse of the judicial review process by irresponsible taxpayers who press stale and frivolous arguments, without hope of success on the merits, in order to delay or harass the collection of public revenues or for other nonworthy purposes. Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a Court of Appeals may award just damages and single or double costs for frivolous appeals____ This Court has recently awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and double costs to the government for a frivolous tax appeal. Other circuits, recognizing the waste of limited judicial and administrative resources that such groundless actions have occasioned, have awarded damages or other extraordinary costs in cases such as these.”

quoted by 6 later decisions, including Denison v. Commissioner, Charczuk v. Commissioner

“wages, salaries, tips and other employee compensation.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Manley v. Commissioner, Charczuk v. Commissioner

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 3101 (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 6653

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by GIBSON · Decided 1983-05-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably Martin v. Commissioner (1985), Charczuk v. Commissioner (1985)

22 federal appellate ·

3201983199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Thomas J. Carley, Rockville Centre, N.Y., for appellants.

¶2Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Paup, William S. Estabrook, Douglas G. Coulter, Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellee.

¶3Before ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

¶4*1018PER CURIAM.

¶5Richard W. Lively and Veronica Lively filed a Form 1040 for the taxable year 1977 reflecting income of only $7,918. This amount was entered on the line for “business income” rather than on the line for “wages, salaries, tips, and other employee compensation.” With the Form 1040, the Livelys filed Wage and Tax Statements showing that Richard had received $30,-659.65 in wages during 1977. They also filed a Schedule C,1 which, after listing “receipts” of $31,360 and “subtractions” for personal expenses of $23,442, identified “net profit” of $7,918. The Commissioner sent the taxpayers a statutory notice determining a deficiency of $6,173 and a penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6653(a) of $308.65. The taxpayers filed a petition with the Tax Court, and that Court2 granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner. T.C. Memo. 1982-590. The taxpayers appeal. We affirm.

¶6The taxpayers contend that the Tax Court erred in upholding the Commissioner’s disallowance of their deductions, because they did not claim any deductions. While it is true that the taxpayers did not enter any amount for claimed deductions on the Form 1040, the “business income” reported on that form was calculated according to the Schedule C filed by the taxpayers, and it clearly included impermissible deductions for personal expenses. Moreover, in their petition, the taxpayers alleged that they “are entitled to deduct from gross income $23,442.00 or such greater or lesser amount as the Court may allow.” Document 2 of the Record on Appeal, paragraph 5(e). The Tax Court did not err in this respect.

¶7The taxpayers argue further that the income tax is unconstitutional because it is a direct tax which is not apportioned, that there is no law imposing an income tax on them for 1977, that 26 U.S.C. §§ 3101, 3102, and 3402 are unconstitutional, that income cannot be defined or measured, and that an individual’s “gross receipts” cannot be taxed. These arguments are wholly without merit.

¶8This appeal is frivolous. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, we impose on the appellants double the costs of the Commissioner.

/705/f2d/1017 · .json · Public domain