Court Finds Man not Required to File Income Tax Returns on Wages
- Thread starter PatriotOne
- Start date
ionlyknowy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 998
it's funny that everyone that makes this argument can never provide me with the citation to that particular Supreme Court case where they decided this....
I suspect you cannot either. You are probably just repeating info you have heard from either a movie or another person.
ionlyknowy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 998
Hehe, you guys are funny.
The charges against this guy were criminal charges. You have a right to a jury in a criminal proceeding, and when you are acquitted from the charges by jury, then you cannot be tried again. It's called double jeopardy.
The whole deal is that the criminal law says that you must "Willfully not file a return"
And tax protesters get off on criminal charges sometimes because they are able to prove that they relied on the information provided by the tax movement therefore their not filing an income tax return was not "Willful" which under the Model Penal Code equates to "Knowledge" of the conduct, attendant circumstances, and result.
BUT, like W. Snipes, this guy was acquitted of criminal charges but still owes the money to the IRS. You think that you might be able to hide your money in a trust or a tenancy by the entirety. But you would be wrong.. The IRS can access your money where other creditors cannot.
A jury acquittal in a criminal proceeding, is never precedent because it can never be appealed. Only appellate or Supreme Court decisions are precedent.
Another poster mentioned Contract law. Many people think that you must sign a piece of paper to make a contract. But in reality, the only things that you HAVE to have a written contract for are the situations mapped out in the "Statute of Frauds". You can enforce an oral contract in court if it is not included in the statute of frauds.
Which includes:
* Contracts in consideration of marriage.
* Contracts which cannot be performed within one year.
* Contracts for the transfer of an interest in land.
* Contracts by the executor of a will to pay a debt of the estate with their own money.
* Contracts for the sale of goods above a certain value.
* Contracts in which one party becomes a surety (acts as guarantor) for another party's debt or other obligation.
It's really funny how everyone tries to be a lawyer, but when confronted with information from people in law school such as myself and "Mr. White" we are mostly dismissed.
We study this stuff every day. We know what we are talking about. Believe me, we know, we eat,sleep,breathe, touch, smell, and piss it...
The charges against this guy were criminal charges. You have a right to a jury in a criminal proceeding, and when you are acquitted from the charges by jury, then you cannot be tried again. It's called double jeopardy.
The whole deal is that the criminal law says that you must "Willfully not file a return"
And tax protesters get off on criminal charges sometimes because they are able to prove that they relied on the information provided by the tax movement therefore their not filing an income tax return was not "Willful" which under the Model Penal Code equates to "Knowledge" of the conduct, attendant circumstances, and result.
BUT, like W. Snipes, this guy was acquitted of criminal charges but still owes the money to the IRS. You think that you might be able to hide your money in a trust or a tenancy by the entirety. But you would be wrong.. The IRS can access your money where other creditors cannot.
A jury acquittal in a criminal proceeding, is never precedent because it can never be appealed. Only appellate or Supreme Court decisions are precedent.
Another poster mentioned Contract law. Many people think that you must sign a piece of paper to make a contract. But in reality, the only things that you HAVE to have a written contract for are the situations mapped out in the "Statute of Frauds". You can enforce an oral contract in court if it is not included in the statute of frauds.
Which includes:
* Contracts in consideration of marriage.
* Contracts which cannot be performed within one year.
* Contracts for the transfer of an interest in land.
* Contracts by the executor of a will to pay a debt of the estate with their own money.
* Contracts for the sale of goods above a certain value.
* Contracts in which one party becomes a surety (acts as guarantor) for another party's debt or other obligation.
It's really funny how everyone tries to be a lawyer, but when confronted with information from people in law school such as myself and "Mr. White" we are mostly dismissed.
We study this stuff every day. We know what we are talking about. Believe me, we know, we eat,sleep,breathe, touch, smell, and piss it...
ionlyknowy, Mr. White, and GoPaul08, sheesh. Are you the same person?
That's not a law. Are you going to really study all this or not? I mean the above just shows how little you understand about how laws are created in this Constitutional Republic. (not my job to teach you either)
ionlyknowy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 998
ionlyknowy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 998
Here is a list of all of the USC (United States Code)
Title 1 General Provisions
Title 2 The Congress
Title 3 The President
Title 4 Flag and Seal, Seat Of Government, and the States
Title 5 Government Organization and Employees*
Title 6
(original) Surety Bonds (repealed)
(Enacted into positive law by the 80th Congress in 1947; combined into Title 31 when it was enacted into positive law.)
Title 6 Domestic Security
Title 7 Agriculture
Title 8 Aliens and Nationality
Title 9 Arbitration
Title 10 Armed Forces (including the Uniform Code of Military Justice)
Title 11 Bankruptcy
Title 12 Banks and Banking
Title 13 Census
Title 14 Coast Guard
Title 15 Commerce and Trade
Title 16 Conservation
Title 17 Copyrights
Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure*
Title 19 Customs Duties
Title 20 Education
Title 21 Food and Drugs
Title 22 Foreign Relations and Intercourse
Title 23 Highways
Title 24 Hospitals and Asylums
Title 25 Indians
Title 26 Internal Revenue Code
Title 27 Intoxicating Liquors
Title 28 Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Title 29 Labor
Title 30 Mineral Lands and Mining
Title 31 Money and Finance
Title 32 National Guard
Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters
Title 34 Navy (repealed)
Title 35 Patents
Title 36 Patriotic Societies and Observances
Title 37 Pay and Allowances Of the Uniformed Services
Title 38 Veterans' Benefits
Title 39 Postal Service
Title 40 Public Buildings, Properties, and Works
Title 41 Public Contracts
Title 42 The Public Health and Welfare
Title 43 Public Lands
Title 44 Public Printing and Documents
Title 45 Railroads
Title 46 Shipping*
Title 47 Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs
Title 48 Territories and Insular Possessions
Title 49 Transportation
(enacted into positive law in stages; Title IV in 1978, Title I in 1983, and Titles II, III, and V-X in 1994)
Title 50 War and National Defense
So are you saying that NONE of the above laws are actually enforceable?
ionlyknowy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 998
The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States based on what is printed in the Statutes at Large. It is divided by broad subjects into 50 titles and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives.
The Supreme Court has stated that the income tax applies to all “undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.” Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955)). (The requirement that accessions to wealth be “realized” means that increases in the value of assets are not taxed to the owner as capital gains until the asset is sold.)
So, if I sell my own labor for $100, I must calculate the gain based on the difference between what I paid for my own labor (not what it is worth) and what I receive for it. Because I paid nothing for my own labor, everything I receive is income.
Looking at it another way, if I start the week with no money, am paid $100 for my labor, and end the week with $100, I am $100 richer than I was at the beginning of the month. That $100 gain is an “undeniable accession to wealth” (in the words of the Supreme Court), and therefore income.
I'm just cutting and pasting at this point.
PlzPeopleWakeUp
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2007
- Messages
- 842
nt
Last edited:
ionlyknowy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 998
.... Sometimes you just have to resort to copy and paste to keep up... lol.Edu..you have MANY times proven that you know nothing about the law, and therefore should NEVER speak as if you do. With every single post you make, you make yourself more and more worthless to the cause.
Agaim..I am being intentionally harsh becuase you deserve it. Ignorance by itself is not a bad thing. Ignorance and arrogance combined (which you possess) is a horrible trait. Maybne you should realize that thay ois why people ignore you.
EVERY single time the Income tax law has been challegned it has held up. and will conitnue to do so. Dumb morons saying "Well, im MY childish, ignraonce, compeltely non-expertise opinion my wages are not income" does not make that a fact.
It is getting to the point where people are going to seriously start to wonder if you are purposely TRYING to make Ron Paul supporters look stupid to discredit the cause. Because if that is the case, then you are succeeding.
Last edited:
Pssst, lemme try with honey first.
There we go! AN ETHICAL OBJECTION! The premise makes some presumptions, but at least it doesn't disguise them as justified by LAW.
Didn't you know? On the internet, EVERYBODY is an expert on EVERYTHING.
On forums/message boards, you can always tell the children frm the intelligent adults. The ones who go off on every single subject as if they are experts are the children. Sadly, it seems that this applies to at least half the people on this forum...and 90% of the people in this thread.
ionlyknowy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 998
Yeah, he's got me beat... I can't refute ethical arguments.. :o
torchbearer
Lizard King
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 38,926
I was stating my philosophy of income not quoting findlaw.com
I guess i should preface every post i write with.. the following is my opinion.
I guess i should preface every post i write with.. the following is my opinion.
Honey is not working. I've given up tying to sweet talk people who are doing no good to the cause.
Again...if Edu and I both walked into a public place filled with 5000 people, none of whom had ever heard of Ron Paul other than the little bit the MSM told them, and we each had the EXACT same materials (pamphlets, slim jims, etc.) and we each said the EXACT same thing. except that I started out saying "He may not have won the nomination, but that does not mean he is/we are giving up trying to reform the party even with John McCain as the nominee." and Edu said "Wait until John McCain realizes that Ron Paul is getting more delegates than he is.." I would be more successful in spreading the word. If we only handed out matreial to people who ASKED for them, after that, Edu would leave that room with 100% of what he entered with. I would give several away. Becuase people listen to rational human beings more than they listen to raving lunatics who just spew ridiculous "facts" without providing any actual evidence, etc.
This is the same with the tax law. Income is taxable. It has ALWAYS held up in court. Always. Many many people have tried to argue against it and they always lose. Continuing to regurgitate the same crap that wacko anti-everything websites spew makes people ignore you.
It is no secret that people come to this site looking for reasons to discredit the group as a whole. And Edu makes it very easy for them to do it.
Honey just won't cut it. I'm not after flies. I want to make a nice salad dressing. So it is vinegar all the way.
That was my fault torch, I was actually responding to your question in the other thread when you asked what taxable income was. I wound up giving you your answer over here.
On a fundamental level I agree with you, but I have to draw the line when others cite law improperly to take their beliefs over into the realm of fact.
This is the way things are, I'd love to change that.
Advancing incorrect legal analysis distracts from our attempt to alter people's beleifs and affect political change. I attack (sometimes overzealously) such distractions. I welcome philosophical debate.
I will agree that the vast majority of cases have considered labor to be taxable, however, I have yet to see a law that clearly says so. The closest I have seen is what you pointed out earlier when you cited to Title 26.
My area of question is the assessment of profit/loss. Making such an assessment involves calculating a starting value (not necessarily a purchase price) and the selling value. You posit that the starting value is 0, simply based on the idea that nothing was paid to another person for the labor. I question if this is accurate. When calculating the base price of something you have to consider all the expenses involved; for example, if a company manufactored a chair and sold it for $100 dollars, they would first add up the cost of the wood, nails, sandpaper used, amoritize the buildings and machinary used, etc. These expenses would be subtracted from the $100 dollars and what was left would be the profit, aka, taxable income. In the exact same manner a similar trade occurs with labor. Instead of wood and nails being expended to create the finished product of a chair, time and energy are expended to create the labor. These elements do have a value which can be calculated. In the same way that a business assigns a value to labor and expenses for the chair, so too could an individual expense their time and energy against their labor. To calculate the value of those components one only has to look at the fair market value of it, subtract that from what is gained in return for it and you would be left with the resulting profit (income). This would probably be 0 unless someone is unreasonably charging above market rates.
I'm sure that some would disagree with the above argument, however, it does seem to be in line with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles which is all that's necessary for tax purposes and income statements.
If you were wondering, yes, I too am one of those who gets to "eat, sleep, drink, and piss" law....speaking of which I need to get back to pulling my International Business Transactions outline together, interesting discussion though.
Last edited:
ionlyknowy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 998
Yes your argument makes sense... But courts have ruled that wages are income.
let me give you a case to consider...
Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 73 (7th Cir. 1986)
Wages not income
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.
Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. "Tax protesters" have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead -- so tax protesters think -- to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes. The government may not prohibit the holding of these beliefs, but it may penalize people who act on them.
It is an important function of the legal system to induce compliance with rules that a minority firmly believes are misguided. Legal penalties change the balance [**3] of self-interest; those who believe taxes wicked or unauthorized must nonetheless pay. When the legal system depends on honest compliance as much as the income tax system does -- and when disobedience is potentially rewarding to those affected by the rule -- it is often necessary to impose steep penalties on those who refuse to comply. We have consolidated the cases of two such people.
[*70] Norman Coleman did not file tax returns for 1979, 1980, or 1981. The Internal Revenue Service reconstructed Coleman's income for these years and concluded that he owed taxes of $4,806 for 1979, $6,454 for 1980, and $3,692 for 1981. The IRS also concluded that Coleman owed additions to tax exceeding $2,300. Coleman sought review in the Tax Court, demanding that the IRS prove the correctness of its computations and arguing, among other things, that wages are not income. Coleman declined to offer any evidence concerning his income; he insisted that the IRS bear the whole burden of production. The Tax Court granted summary judgment to the IRS, concluding that Coleman had presented no evidence that might undermine the presumption that the Commissioner's notice of deficiency is correct. Because [**4] Coleman had filed tax returns for the years before 1979 and demonstrated through the briefing an awareness of the legal obligation to file, the court imposed a penalty of $5,000 under HN1Go to the description of this Headnote.26 U.S.C. § 6673, which authorizes the Tax Court to award damages when it concludes that the case has been "maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position in such proceedings is frivolous or groundless . . . ."
Gary Holder filed a tax return for 1980 but then filed an amended return on which he subtracted his wages from his gross income, leaving only $68.13 in taxable income. Holder attached to the amended return a screed insisting that wages are not income. The amended return requested a refund of $4,555.20. The IRS imposed a $500 penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6702 for filing a frivolous return. Holder paid 15% of the penalty and filed suit in the district court to recover the payment. 26 U.S.C. § 6703. There he argued not only that wages are untaxable but also that § 6702 is unconstitutional. The district court concluded that the suit is as frivolous as the tax return. It granted summary judgment [**5] to the government and ordered Holder to pay the attorneys' fees the government incurred in defending the action.
The billingsgate in appellants' briefs is customary in cases of this nature. Coleman says that wages may not be taxed because they come from his person, a depreciating asset. The personal depreciation offsets the wage, leaving no net income. Coleman thinks that only net income may be taxed under the Sixteenth Amendment -- net income as Coleman defines it, rather than as Congress does. Holder, who styles himself a "private citizen," insists that wages may not be taxed because the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes only excise taxes, and in Holder's world excises may be imposed only on "government granted privileges." Because Holder believes that he is exercising no special privileges, he thinks he may not be taxed. These are tired arguments. HN2Go to the description of this Headnote.The code imposes a tax on all income. See 26 U.S.C. § 61. Wages are income, and the tax on wages is constitutional. See, among hundreds of other cases, United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), slip op. 2-3; Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984); [**6] Granzow v. CIR, 739 F.2d 265, 267, 54 A.F.T.R.2d (P-H) 5576 (7th Cir. 1984); United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329 & n.1 (7th Cir. 1984). See also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12, 24-25, 36 S. Ct. 236, 60 L. Ed. 493 (1916).
Both Coleman and Holder also argue that the income tax is a taking, which abridges their right to earn income. Taxes indeed "take" income, but this is not the sense in which the constitution uses "takings." Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the constitution grants to Congress "Power To lay and collect Taxes". The power thus long predates the Sixteenth Amendment, which did no more than remove the apportionment requirement of Art. I, sec. 2, cl. 3 from taxes on "incomes, from whatever source derived". Although the government might try to achieve through special taxes what the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment forbids if done directly, the general tax levied by the Internal Revenue Code does not offend the Fifth Amendment. Brushaber, supra.
[*71] Coleman argues that the IRS had to prove the amount of his income; he needed to show nothing. The statute is otherwise. [**7] HN3Go to the description of this Headnote.People must make an honest report of their income to the government. If they fail to do this, they must establish any inaccuracies in the Commissioner's reconstruction of their income. 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b). His further argument that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial in the Tax Court is empty. Even in ordinary litigation, the Seventh Amendment does not require a jury trial when there are no facts in dispute, and Coleman put none in dispute. The Seventh Amendment at all events does not apply to civil litigation against the United States. McElrath v. United States, 102 U.S. (12 Otto) 426, 440, 26 L. Ed. 189 (1880); see also Atlas Roofing Co. v. OSHRC, 430 U.S. 442, 450-51, 51 L. Ed. 2d 464, 97 S. Ct. 1261 (1977). Our circuit has apparently never held squarely that there is no right to a jury trial in the Tax Court, but other circuits have held this, and we agree with them. E.g., Parker v. CIR, 724 F.2d 469, 472 (5th Cir. 1984); Funk v. CIR, 687 F.2d 264, 266 (8th Cir. 1982).
Both appellants challenge the penalties imposed on them, contending that "frivolous" is too vague a designation [**8] to support a penalty. This HN4Go to the description of this Headnote.is a staple term of civil litigation, however, and we have sustained against constitutional challenge 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which allows awards against counsel for "vexatious" conduct. In re TCI, Ltd., 769 F.2d 441, 449 (7th Cir. 1985). Statutes need not be unambiguous in every application to be constitutional. Many words acquire meaning through judicial and administrative construction over the years, and this evolutionary process is constitutional. E.g., CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 37 L. Ed. 2d 796, 93 S. Ct. 2880 (1973); cf. Rose v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48, 46 L. Ed. 2d 185, 96 S. Ct. 243 (1975). Courts have been imposing penalties for frivolous litigation for hundreds of years, cf. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764-67, 65 L. Ed. 2d 488, 100 S. Ct. 2455 (1980), and the ambiguities that lurk in "frivolous" (or any other word) in marginal cases do not prevent the imposition of penalties. Uncertainty is a fact of legal life. The "law is full of instances where a man's fate depends on his estimating rightly, that is, as the jury subsequently estimates [**9] it, some matter of degree." Nash v. United States, 229 U.S. 373, 377, 57 L. Ed. 1232, 33 S. Ct. 780 (1913). "Whenever the law draws a line there will be cases very near each other on opposite sides. The precise course of the line may be uncertain, but no one can come near it without knowing that he does so, if he thinks, and if he does so it is familiar to the . . . law to make him take the risk." United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396, 399, 74 L. Ed. 508, 50 S. Ct. 167 (1930). See also, e.g., United States v. Powell, 423 U.S. 87, 46 L. Ed. 2d 228, 96 S. Ct. 316 (1975).
The purpose of 26 U.S.C. §§ 6673 and 6702 is to compel taxpayers to think and to conform their conduct to settled principles before they file returns and litigate. HN5Go to the description of this Headnote.A petition to the Tax Court, or a tax return, is frivolous if it is contrary to established law and unsupported by a reasoned, colorable argument for change in the law. This is the standard applied under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 for sanctions in civil litigation, and it is a standard we have used for the award of fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the award of [**10] damages under Fed. R. App. P. 38. See Indianapolis Colts v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 775 F.2d 177 (7th Cir. 1985); In re TCI, supra; Lepucki v. Van Wormer, 765 F.2d 86 (7th Cir.) (attorneys' fees awarded), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 827, 106 S. Ct. 86, 88 L. Ed. 2d 71, damages awarded, 474 U.S. 992, 106 S. Ct. 403, 88 L. Ed. 2d 355 (1985); Steinle v. Warren, 765 F.2d 95, 102 (7th Cir. 1985) ($2,500 damages awarded); Oglesby v. RCA Corp., 752 F.2d 272, 279-80 (7th Cir. 1985). The inquiry is objective. If a person should have known that his position is groundless, a court may and should impose sanctions. See Thornton v. Wahl, 787 F.2d 1151, 4 Fed.R.Serv.3d. 687 (7th Cir. 1986), slip op. 5.
Things are otherwise under §§ 6673 and 6702, the appellants say; these statutes [*72] require not only a lack of objective support but also subjective bad faith. Coleman cites May v. CIR, 752 F.2d 1301 (8th Cir. 1985), for this proposition. As originally published May used a subjective test, although the court found that May [**11] himself acted in subjective bad faith. The court later revised the opinion, stating the inquiry as whether the taxpayer "knew or should have known" that the claim, return, or argument was groundless. 55 A.F.T.R.2d (P-H) 747, 751 (8th Cir. 1985). HN6Go to the description of this Headnote."Should have known" is an objective test. We used an objective test for penalties under the tax laws in Lovell v. United States, supra, and there is no reason to change that approach. Section 6673, for example, states alternative tests: whether the suit was "maintained . . . primarily for delay" or whether the position is "frivolous or groundless." The former is a subjective inquiry, the latter is objective; either will support a penalty. See also In re TCI, supra, 769 F.2d at 445 (subjective bad faith is important under § 1927 only when the litigation is objectively colorable).
The purpose of §§ 6673 and 6702, like the purpose of Rules 11 and 38 and of § 1927, is to induce litigants to conform their behavior to the governing rules regardless of their subjective beliefs. Groundless litigation diverts the time and energies of judges from more serious claims; it imposes needless costs [**12] on other litigants. Once the legal system has resolved a claim, judges and lawyers must move on to other things. They cannot endlessly rehear stale arguments. Both appellants say that the penalties stifle their right to petition for redress of grievances. But HN7Go to the description of this Headnote.there is no constitutional right to bring frivolous suits, see Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 743, 76 L. Ed. 2d 277, 103 S. Ct. 2161 (1983). People who wish to express displeasure with taxes must choose other forums, and there are many available. Taxes are onerous, no doubt, and the size of the tax burden gives people reason to hope that they can escape payment. Self-interest calls forth obtuseness. An obtuse belief -- even if sincerely held -- is no refuge, no warrant for imposing delay on the legal system and costs on one's adversaries. The more costly obtuseness becomes, the less there will be.
The contentions in this case are objectively frivolous. They have been raised and rejected so often that this circuit now handles almost all similar cases by unpublished orders. The Tax Court and the IRS were entitled to impose sanctions. We, too, regularly impose sanctions in these cases. [**13] In Van Wormer this court awarded attorneys' fees as a sanction for similar claims, and the Supreme Court added $1,000 in damages. Our unpublished orders in cases of this sort regularly end with awards of double costs and attorneys' fees in favor of the government. Precisely because the substantive claims are so weak, and the opinions are therefore unpublished, litigants may be unaware of our practice. The routine use of sanctions does not deter unless people know what lies in store. See also, e.g., Connor v. CIR, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2d Cir. 1985) (the argument that wages are not income "has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions.").
Our usual practice has been to invite the government to submit an itemized request for attorneys' fees. The keeping of time and expense records, and the preparation of affidavits supporting requests for fees, are themselves avoidable costs of baseless litigation. The government's brief in No. 85-1601 informs us that the average amount of fees it has been awarded in tax protester litigation between July 26, 1984, and June 12, 1985, is $1,258 per case. This includes only the fees [**14] that can be directly attributed to litigation. In order to make simpler the task of computing and awarding fees, courts sometimes impose uniform sanctions on the authority of Fed. R. App. P. 38. The Supreme Court awarded a flat $1,000 in Van Wormer on top of the fees we had earlier granted. We, too, have occasionally named a penalty rather than requesting an individual computation of fees. E.g., Steinle, supra; Ruderer v. Fines, 614 F.2d 1128, 1132-33 (7th Cir. 1980); [*73] and Clarion Corp. v. American Home Products Corp., 494 F.2d 860, 865-66 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 870, 95 S. Ct. 128, 42 L. Ed. 2d 108 (1974), each of which imposes $2,500 as damages for frivolous appeals; and Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, 776 F.2d 176, 179 (7th Cir. 1985); and Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1986), each of which imposes a $500 penalty for a frivolous appeal. And compare Hallowell v. CIR, 744 F.2d 406, 408 (5th Cir. 1984) ($2,000 per tax protest); and Crain v. CIR, 737 F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir. 1984) (same), with Knoblauch v. CIR, 749 F.2d 200, 202-03 (5th Cir. 1984) [**15] (individual calculation).
Because average awards of actual attorneys' fees in tax protest cases exceed $1,000, we choose to impose sanctions of $1,500 in lieu of attorneys' fees. Even $1,500 cannot cover the indirect costs of this litigation -- including the costs that befall serious litigants, who must wait longer for their cases to receive judicial attention. The decision to name a penalty rather than invite proof of the government's actual attorneys' fees produces some imprecision, doubtless. Coleman's case is a little more complex than Holder's -- Coleman's brief is 38 pages, the government's 31; Holder's brief is 10 pages, the government's 16. There should be no weeping over this imprecision, however. Coleman and Holder could have avoided the penalty, and other people should avoid it, by the most minimal concern for settled rules. They knew or should have known that their claims are frivolous, and they (rather than their adversary) must pay the cost of their self-indulgent litigation.
The judgments are affirmed, with double costs and $1,500 damages in each case.
Similar threads
