Sherwood v. Department of the Treasury

Second Circuit

Sherwood v. Department of the Treasury

372 F. App'x 101

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 23, 2010

Docket09-1405-cv

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 372 F. App'x 101 (Sherwood v. Department of the Treasury) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sherwood v. Department of the Treasury, 372 F. App'x 101 (2d Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Clive Arnel Sherwood appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Matsumoto, J.), which dismissed sua sponte his complaint challenging a levy allegedly placed on his wages by the Internal Revenue Service. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss a complaint by a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis if, inter alia, the court determines that it is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We conduct de novo review for both grounds of the district court’s sua sponte dismissal. See Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d Cir.2001) (dismissal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)); see also Maloney v. Soc. See. Admin., 517 F.3d 70, 74 (2d Cir.2008) (per curiam) (dismissal pursuant to an absence of subject matter jurisdiction).

We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum and order. Even liberally construing his pro se complaint, Sherwood’s substantive claims are frivolous. Contrary to Sherwood’s contentions, the federal income tax is constitutional, wages are taxable income, and the Sixteenth Amendment removed the apportionment requirement for direct taxes. See, e.g., Ficalora v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 751 F.2d 85, 87 (2d Cir.1984); Connor v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam). Sherwood also alleges that the proper procedures for placing a levy on his wages were not followed, but there is no indication that he exhausted his administrative remedies as required with respect to this claim, and the district court therefore properly dismissed this claim. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 7422, 7429; see also Wapnick v. United States, 112 F.3d 74, 75 (2d Cir.1997) (per curiam); United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 601-02, 110 S.Ct. 1361, 108 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990).

We have considered Sherwood’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Clive Arnel Sherwood appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Matsumoto, J.), which dismissed sua sponte his complaint challenging a levy allegedly placed on his wages by the Internal Revenue Service. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss a complaint by a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis if, inter alia, the court determines that it is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We conduct de novo review for both grounds of the district court’s sua sponte dismissal. See Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d Cir.2001) (dismissal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)); see also Maloney v. Soc. See. Admin., 517 F.3d 70, 74 (2d Cir.2008) (per curiam) (dismissal pursuant to an absence of subject matter jurisdiction).

We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum and order. Even liberally construing his pro se complaint, Sherwood’s substantive claims are frivolous. Contrary to Sherwood’s contentions, the federal income tax is constitutional, wages are taxable income, and the Sixteenth Amendment removed the apportionment requirement for direct taxes. See, e.g., Ficalora v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 751 F.2d 85, 87 (2d Cir.1984); Connor v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam). Sherwood also alleges that the proper procedures for placing a levy on his wages were not followed, but there is no indication that he exhausted his administrative remedies as required with respect to this claim, and the district court therefore properly dismissed this claim. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 7422, 7429; see also Wapnick v. United States, 112 F.3d 74, 75 (2d Cir.1997) (per curiam); United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 601-02, 110 S.Ct. 1361, 108 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990).

We have considered Sherwood’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

372 F. App'x 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherwood-v-department-of-the-treasury-ca2-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack