"Living Man" Fails To Quash Summons (Wankel -CA10)

[jcolvin2]

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-2100.pdf

Exceprts:

Wankel failed to pay his income tax assessments due for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003. In 2010, the IRS assigned a Revenue Officer to investigate the collection of the assessments against Wankel. The officer issued a summons directing Wankel to appear and give testimony and produce certain documents pertaining to his finances. Wankel appeared at the proper time, but did not comply with the summons by failing to produce documents, and would not cooperate with the officer. Instead, Wankel stated that he was not the “entity” summoned, but was a separate, “living man,” and demanded “immunity.” The officer gave Wankel another opportunity to appear at a future date and comply with the summons. Again he appeared, but continued to demand “immunities and waivers of liability.”

***

The district court determined that “the United States has established the elements of a prima facie case through the testimony of” the officer, and that Wankel “failed to establish any ground for denying” the petition. R., Doc. 26 at 4. Upon this finding, the burden shifted to Wankel to establish a valid defense.

In response to his purported defense, the court found that Wankel’s “objections to the Court’s jurisdiction . . . are precisely the kind of incoherent tax-protestor arguments that are routinely rejected as frivolous.” Id.; see also Lonsdale, 919 F.2d at 1447–48. Finally, the court held that Wankel’s due process arguments are also incorrect. Wankel’s “beliefs about the tax laws, as proffered, are far removed from the mainstream of jurisprudence. Due process does not require that this Court adopt and accept positions which have been repeatedly rejected by other courts and which, to a great extent, are unintelligible. ” R., Doc. 26 at 5.

On appeal, Wankel raises the same type of “tax-protestor” arguments, challenging the jurisdiction of the IRS and the underlying statutes which authorize tax collection. Given the persuasive reasoning of the district court’s opinion, id. at 4–5, there is no reason to repeat the analysis dismissing the arguments here. See also Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984) (finding there is “no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit”).

But in any event, even if we reach the merits of Wankel’s arguments, they are all easily eliminated. Specifically, reference to an extended quotation from this court’s opinion in Lonsdale covers all of Wankel’s arguments:

[T]he following arguments . . . are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: (1) individuals . . . are not “persons” subject to taxation under the Internal Revenue code; (2) the authority of the United States is confined to the District of Columbia; . . . (7) no statutory authority exists for imposing an income tax on individuals; (8) the term “income” as used in the tax statutes is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite; (9) individuals are not required to file tax returns fully reporting their income;

To this short list of rejected tax protester arguments we now add as equally meritless the additional arguments made herein that (1) the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and employees of the Internal Revenue Service have no power or authority to administer the
Internal Revenue laws, including power to issue summons, liens and levies, because of invalid or nonexistent delegations of authority, lack of publication of delegations of authority in the Federal Register, violations of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, including the Freedom of Information Act; and (2) tax forms, including 1040, 1040A, 1040EZ and other reporting forms, are invalid because they have not been published in the Federal Register.

Lonsdale, 919 F.2d at 1448.

[Cathulhu]

But he used the Magic Words! How could it fail?!?

[rogfulton]

But he used the Magic Words! How could it fail?!?

He wasn't facing the appropriate guru's prison cell when he invoked the Magic.

[notorial dissent]

And he didn't have his silly and/or tin foil hat on when he said them.