MICHAEL A. BROUGHTON, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that wages are taxable income and the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes an unapportioned income tax.
Taxpayer sought refunds for income taxes paid on wages, claiming wages were not taxable income and taxing them was unconstitutional.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Definition Of Income cases and more on FLexlaw
[*707] PER CURIAM.
Taxpayer Michael A. Broughton brought suit seeking $740.80 and $857.00 in refunds for income taxes paid - in 1976 and 1977 respectively. By order of March 17, 1980, the district court1 granted the government’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint; taxpayer appealed. The sole basis for the refund claimed in the district court and the single contention of taxpayer on appeal is that he is not a person required to pay taxes because the wages he received as compensation for services in 1976 and 1977 are not subject to tax, and taxing those wages would be unconstitutional as,a direct tax that is not apportioned among the states.
The sixteenth amendment authorizes the imposition of an income tax without apportionment among the states. Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 17-18, 36 S.Ct. 236, 241, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916). Income includes wages or compensation received for services performed, and taxpayer’s contention is frivolous and totally devoid of merit. See Hayward v. Day, 619 F. 2d 716 (8th Cir. 1980); United States v. Francisco, 614 F. 2d 617, 619 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 922, 100 S.Ct. 1861, 64 L.Ed.2d 278 (1980). The dismissal order of the district court should be and hereby is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
. The Honorable Donald E. O’Brien, United States District Judge for the Northern and Southern Districts of Iowa.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Charles W. and Marlene D. Stelly v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 761 F.2d 1113 (5th Cir. 1985)
-
Granzow v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 739 F.2d 265 (7th Cir. 1984)
-
Funk v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 687 F.2d 264 (8th Cir. 1982)
Authorities Cited
- Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1916)
- United States v. Francisco, 614 F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 1980)
- Hayward v. Irl E. DAY, 619 F.2d 716 (8th Cir. 1980)
- Schmanski v. United States, 446 U.S. 922 (U.S. 1980)
- Podrazik v. Blum, 446 U.S. 922 (U.S. 1980)