McCoy v. Internal Revenue Svc ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10068
Conference Calendar
ALLISON MCCOY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DISTRICT
DIRECTOR, AUSTIN, TEXAS; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE CHIEF OF
COLLECTIONS, AUSTIN, TEXAS; H. GADDAY; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
DISTRICT DIRECTOR, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
CHIEF OF COLLECTIONS, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE,
Defendants -Appellees,
-------------------------
ALLISON MCCOY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DISTRICT
DIRECTOR, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE CHIEF OF
COLLECTIONS, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
DISTRICT DIRECTOR, AUSTIN, TEXAS; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE CHIEF
OF COLLECTIONS, AUSTIN, TEXAS; PAM C. BIGELOW, Director, Austin
Customer Service Center; NANCY SPOTSER, Chief Customer Service
Division, Austin, Texas,
Defendants - Appellees.
-------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:00-CV-2786-M &
USDC No. 3:00-CV-2787-M
--------------------
October 29, 2002
Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
No. 02-10068
-2-
Allison McCoy appeals from the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS). McCoy argues on appeal that her wages are not
taxable income and that income tax is unconstitutional because it
violates her property rights.
McCoy’s arguments are without merit. McCoy’s tax returns
for the relevant tax years reflect that she was employed by the
United States Marine Corps and later by two private companies as
a technician. Her wages from these employers constitute taxable
income. See 26 C.F.R. § 1.61-2(a)(1)(providing that wages of
persons in the United States military are income to the
recipients unless excluded by law); 26 U.S.C. § 3401(a)(defining
wages as all means of remuneration for services provided by an
employee to an employer including cash and other mediums);
26 U.S.C. § 61(a)(1)(specifically including compensation for
services in the definition of gross income). Similarly, McCoy’s
challenge to the constitutionality of income tax has been soundly
rejected by this court. See Stelly v. Comm’r, 761 F.2d 1113,
1115 (5th Cir. 1985).
McCoy’s appeal is without arguable merit and therefore
frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-220 (5th Cir.
1983). Accordingly, McCoy’s appeal is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR.
R. 42.2.
R. 47.5.4.