Stephen M. Paulson v. United States

758 F.2d 61, 55 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1138, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29844
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedMarch 22, 1985
Docket887, Docket 84-6226
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 758 F.2d 61 (Stephen M. Paulson v. United States) 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
Stephen M. Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61, 55 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1138, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29844 (2d Cir. 1985).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Stephen M. Paulson appeals from a judgment of the District Court for the District of Connecticut (Jose A. Cabranes, Judge) dismissing his complaint under 26 U.S.C. § 6703 for refund ■ of a civil penalty assessed against him by the Internal Revenue Service for filing a frivolous income tax return, id. § 6702(a). The return responded to every item of information called for with an asterisk reference to a footnote invoking a series of constitutional amend-' ments.

The appeal is as frivolous as the return for which appellant has been properly assessed a penalty. The Supreme Court has ruled that a self-incrimination claim “against every question on the tax return” would be “virtually frivolous.” Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 382 U.S. 70, 79, 86 S.Ct. 194, 199, 15 L.Ed.2d 165 (1965). See also United States v. Schiff, 612 F.2d 73, 77-78, 83 (2d Cir.1979).

Appellant’s challenges to the validity of the statute penalizing the submission of frivolous returns are entirely without merit.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, appellant is assessed double costs in this Court plus a reasonable attorney’s fee to the appellee in the amount of $2,500, to be paid to the United States within fourteen days of the date of this decision on pain of penalties for contempt. See Schiff v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir.1984) (per curiam). The mandate shall issue forthwith.

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

Related

In Re Paulson
170 B.R. 496 (D. Connecticut, 1994)
Kamerman v. Steinberg
891 F.2d 424 (Second Circuit, 1989)
Leogrande v. United States
811 F.2d 147 (Second Circuit, 1987)
Donnelly L. Sisemore v. United States
785 F.2d 310 (Sixth Circuit, 1986)
Martin T. Ricket v. United States
773 F.2d 1214 (Eleventh Circuit, 1985)
Mone v. Commissioner
774 F.2d 570 (Second Circuit, 1985)
Fuller v. United States
615 F. Supp. 1054 (E.D. California, 1985)
Allen W. Jolly v. United States
764 F.2d 642 (Ninth Circuit, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
758 F.2d 61, 55 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1138, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephen-m-paulson-v-united-states-ca2-1985.