Richmond v. Commissioner , 474 F. App'x 754 ( 2012 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 15, 2012
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
BRIAN STEVEN RICHMOND,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 12-9000
(Tax No. 7397-10)
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL (U.S. Tax Court)
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before MATHESON, Circuit Judge, PORFILIO, Senior Circuit Judge, and
BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.
Brian Steven Richmond, proceeding pro se, appeals from a decision of the
United States Tax Court ordering a deficiency in income tax due for tax year 2008
and imposing additions to tax under 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1) and (2). Exercising
jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1), we affirm.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Mr. Richmond does not dispute that he received wage and interest payments in
2008. Nevertheless, he filed a return and an amended return for tax year 2008
asserting that he received $0 in income and seeking a refund of the wages withheld
for income tax. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) prepared a “substitute for
return” and calculated that Mr. Richmond owed $4,095 in federal income tax, plus
statutorily authorized additions to tax. Accordingly, it issued a notice of deficiency
to Mr. Richmond, who exercised his right to contest the determination in the Tax
Court. The Tax Court accepted the IRS’s figures and ordered a deficiency of $4,095
and additions. Mr. Richmond does not challenge the mathematical computations
underlying the notice of deficiency and the Tax Court’s decision.
Instead, he contends that he is “a citizen of Kansas that earned a living through
activities occurring solely under the jurisdiction of Kansas” and that he has not
received “income,” as that term is defined for tax purposes, because he has not
“engag[ed] in optional, or privileged activities that fall under Federal jurisdiction and
result in a meaningful gain.” Aplt. Br. at 1, 3. He further asserts that he “has
lawfully met the criteria of maintaining status as a NonTaxpayor for which all
withholding collected while voluntarily participating in taxation programmes set
forth via Tax or Revenue Acts are to be refunded as the result of filing a tax return.”
Id. at 5-6. “Appellant is not a Taxpayor, and it is proper as a NonTaxpayor to file a
return that is a list of zeros to receive a refund of all withholding that were collected
while voluntarily participating in taxation programmes . . . .” Id. at 9.
-2-
This court has rejected a variety of meritless arguments to avoid paying federal
income tax. See Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990)
(listing various arguments that “are completely lacking in legal merit and patently
frivolous,” including that “the authority of the United States is confined to the
District of Columbia,” “wages are not income,” “the income tax is voluntary,” “no
statutory authority exists for imposing an income tax on individuals,” and
“individuals are not required to file tax returns fully reporting their income”).
Mr. Richmond’s arguments fall in this category. This court has reiterated that the
federal government has the power to impose an income tax on individuals and noted
that “gross income” includes “‘all income from whatever source derived.’” Wheeler
v. C.I.R., 528 F.3d 773, 776-77 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting 26 U.S.C. § 61(a)); see also
Charczuk v. C.I.R., 771 F.2d 471, 472-73 (10th Cir. 1985) (discussing federal
authority to impose income tax and stating that wages for services rendered “fall
squarely within the definition of income” (internal quotation marks omitted)). In
short, it is well-settled that wages and interest payments constitute taxable income.
Mr. Richmond cannot elect “nontaxpayer” status.
The decision of the Tax Court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-