Anderson v. United States

29 F. App'x 619
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided March 14, 2002·No. No. 01-2135·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After carefully reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we affirm the decision below.

The appellants’ central contention is that Treas. Reg. § 31.3102-1(c) does not provide adequate authority for collecting the employee portion of FICA taxes from them. Contrary to the appellants’ argu[620]*620merit, however, IRS has rule-making authority for FICA taxes, and the regulations are afforded the usual deference. United States v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., 532 U.S. 200, 121 S.Ct. 1433, 149 L.Ed.2d 401 (2001).

The appellants’ remaining arguments fail for substantially the reasons stated by the district court at the hearing.

Affirmed. Loc. R. 27(c).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Anderson v. United States, 29 F. App'x 619 (1st Cir. 2002).

29 F. App'x 619 (Anderson v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Latos
948 F. Supp. 2d 203 (D. Rhode Island, 2013)
Anderson v. United States
537 U.S. 1020 (Supreme Court, 2002)