Hennegen v. Taylor

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 10 1997
TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ROY HENNEGEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 96-1547
v. (D.C. No. 96-Z-1602)
(Colorado)
DUANE TAYLOR,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, PORFILIO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Plaintiff Roy Hennegen filed a lawsuit in state court against Duane Taylor,
the branch manager for Alternative Resources Corporation, claiming that Mr.
Taylor underpaid Mr. Hennegen in the amount of $21,994.45 for work performed
by Mr. Hennegen. Mr. Taylor removed the case to federal court on the grounds
that Mr. Hennegen was actually complaining about federal and state taxes since
the amount withheld from his salary constituted federal and state income taxes
and social security required to be withheld by federal and state law. Mr.
Hennegen appeals the district court’s grant of Mr. Taylor’s Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings and for Sanctions. We affirm.
Mr. Hennegen contends on appeal that he is not a federal government
employee as required by the definition of “employee” in the Internal Revenue
Code, 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c). Unfortunately for him, all employees, not just
employees of the federal government, are required to submit to federal tax
withholding. See United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985)
(contention that “under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of ‘employee’ does not
include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the
statute.”). We agree with the district court, substantially for the reasons stated in
its Order of Dismissal that “[t]his lawsuit is simply a disturbing effort to
undermine our nation’s tax system.” Rec., vol I, tab 21 at 2. Consequently, we
AFFIRM the judgment of the district court, including the award of sanctions.
-2-
Mr. Taylor requests that we grant sanctions on appeal on the grounds this
appeal is frivolous and vexatious. We grant the motion and award Mr. Taylor
double costs and attorney’s fees as a sanction. See Lonsdale v United States, 919
F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990). We REMAND to the district court for a
determination of the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees expended by Mr. Taylor
for defending this appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephanie K. Seymour
Chief Judge
-3-