GERALD M. MADISON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-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 the federal government's tax collecting apparatus has the power to impose obligations on the appellant.
Appellant filed a pro se petition for rehearing arguing the federal government's tax collecting apparatus lacks power over him. He invoked the jurisdi…
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 Frivolous Tax Return Penalty cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Gerald Madison files a pro se petition for rehearing arguing that the federal government’s tax collecting apparatus (the Department of Treasury, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Internal Revenue Service, etc.) has no power or authority to impose any obligation upon him whatsoever. In doing so, he misidentifies this contention as going to the “jurisdiction” of this arm of the government to act over his person and this subject matter. Having invoked the magic word of “jurisdiction,” appellant proceeds into citations of cases outlining the considerations with which a court is faced when its jurisdiction is questioned. None of these cases are at all apposite, because appellant raises no questions as to the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Indeed, he invoked the jurisdiction of the courts by filing this lawsuit, under I.R.C. § 6073(c), for a refund of a penalty assessed against him for filing a frivolous return.
The assertion that the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service have no power over this appellant and this subject matter is frivolous. Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, U.S. Const, art. I, § 8, cl. 1, and may “lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states.” U.S. Const, amend. XVI. The Treasury Department and Commissioner of Internal Revenue are charged with administering and enforcing the collection of taxes imposed by Congress. See I.R.C. §§ 7801, 7802.
This petition for rehearing is due to be. denied without the above elaboration. However, in view of the fact that this contention appears to be often raised in litigation of this sort, it was thought best to lay it to rest in a published order, so that these types of arguments will not be frivolously asserted again.
The petition for rehearing is DENIED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Morse, 532 F.3d 1130 (11th Cir. 2008)…, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” U.S. Const. Amend. XVI. The IRS is charged with administering and enforcing Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes, including on income from whatever source derived. Madison v. United States, 758 F. 2d 573, 574 (11th Cir.1985). The IRS is authorized to issue a summons for the purpose of “ascertaining the correctness of any return, making a return where none has been made, determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax ..., or co…
-
Lefebvre v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 830 F.2d 417 (D.C. Cir. 1987)…Commissioner, 737 F. 2d 1417, 1417—18 (5th Cir.1984); Sparrow v. Commissioner, 748 F. 2d 914, 915 (4th Cir.1984); Edwards v. Commissioner, 680 F. 2d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir.1982), and contrary taxpayer assertions are frivolous. Madison v. United States, 758 F. 2d 573, 574 (11th Cir.1985). . Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F. 2d 17 (2d Cir.1985) (double costs and $2,000 attorney fee award); United States v. Wissig, 808 F. 2d 836 (4th Cir.1986) (unpublished disposition) ($1,500 sanction); Wright v. Commissioner, 752…
-
United States v. Daleiden (M.D. Fla. 2020)…9 WL 5851082, at *7 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2009) (explaining that the Eleventh Circuit has “flatly rejected – as frivolous – arguments […] that challenge Congress’ power under the Constitution to lay and collect income taxes”); Madison v. United States, 758 F. 2d 573, 574 (11th Cir. 1985) (“[A]ssertions that the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service have no power” to lay and collect income taxes is frivolous). Accordingly, the February Motion is denied. Warning About the Unauthorized Practice of Law…