Michael A. Broughton v. United States

Eighth Circuit

Michael A. Broughton v. United States

632 F.2d 706

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 27, 1980

Docket80-1307

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 632 F.2d 706 (Michael A. Broughton v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Michael A. Broughton v. United States, 632 F.2d 706 (8th Cir. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

*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 court 1 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.

1

. The Honorable Donald E. O’Brien, United States District Judge for the Northern and Southern Districts of Iowa.

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

*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 court 1 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.

1

. The Honorable Donald E. O’Brien, United States District Judge for the Northern and Southern Districts of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

632 F.2d 706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-a-broughton-v-united-states-ca8-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack