WILLIAM E. MCNAIR, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
ROSCOE EGGERS, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ACTING IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

11th Cir. | 1986-05-09
No. 85-8702
788 F.2d 1509 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1986) Negative Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

Appellant McNair appeals the district court’s dismissal of his “Petition for Writ of Prohibition” for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant’s complaint sought to prevent the collection of taxes assessed against him. As such, it was proscribed by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421 (1982). We agree with the district court that this action was not within the exception noted in Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 6-7, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 1128-29, 8 L.Ed.2d 292 (1962). Moreover, appellant’s action, to the extent he sought return of his property, was not properly before the district court because he did not allege he had filed a claim for refund or credit with the Internal Revenue Service. 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a) (1982). We therefore affirm the district court’s decision.

On appeal, the government asks that sanctions be imposed against appellant for filing a frivolous appeal. Where an appellant’s contentions are stale and have long been settled, sanctions may be imposed, including double costs and attorney’s fees. See e.g., Waters v. Commissioner, 764 F. 2d 1389, 1390 (11th Cir.1985) Biermann v. Commissioner, 769 F. 2d 707, 708 (11th Cir.1985). Appellant asserts various tax protester type arguments: (1) the Internal Revenue Service has no jurisdiction over him; (2) his wages are not “income;” and (3) he is not a person subject to tax. These arguments are patently frivolous and have been rejected by our court numerous times. Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to award double costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. We remand to the district court for a determination of reasonable attorney’s fees to be awarded to the government for the cost of defending this appeal.

AFFIRMED, (double costs assessed) and REMANDED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Stoecklin v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 865 F.2d 1221 (11th Cir. 1989)
    …that a petitioner was not a person liable for taxes but was a “freeman” and that his wages were not income were patently frivolous. Stoecklin’s arguments that he is not subject to the income tax laws are equally frivolous. See also McNair v. Eggers, 788 F. 2d 1509, 1510 (11th Cir.1986) (imposing sanctions for frivolous appeal). B. Whether the tax court properly allowed the IRS to amend its answer before trial to claim in increased deficiency? Stoecklin argues that the tax court erred in allowing the IRS to…
  • Pollard v. Comm'r, Internal Revenue Serv., 816 F.2d 603 (11th Cir. 1987)
    …missioner had neither personal nor subject matter jurisdiction and that he is not a person subject to tax. Arguments such as these are patently frivolous and similar arguments have been rejected by this Court on numerous occasions. McNair v. Eggers, 788 F. 2d 1509 (11th Cir.1986); Biermann v. Commissioner, 769 F. 2d 707 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, — [*605] U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 887, 93 L.Ed.2d 840 (1987). The record in this case also reflects that Pollard has previously brought frivolous tax claims. Pollard v.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw