Wright v. Rossotti

D.C. Circuit

Wright v. Rossotti

30 F. App'x 4

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 8, 2002

DocketNo. 01-5173

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 30 F. App'x 4 (Wright v. Rossotti) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wright v. Rossotti, 30 F. App'x 4 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint be affirmed. As a jurisdictional prerequisite to a district court action seeking a refund of federal income tax that has been erroneously assessed or collected, the taxpayer must pay the challenged tax in full. See Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63, 75, 78 S.Ct. 1079, 2 L.Ed.2d 1165 (1958), aff'd on reh’g, 362 U.S. 145, 80 S.Ct. 630, 4 L.Ed.2d 623 (1960). Appellant makes no claim that she has done so. Moreover, appellant’s claim that she owes no federal income tax because compliance with the federal tax laws is voluntary is patently frivolous and fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir.1990). The district court therefore correctly dismissed appellant’s complaint.

Pursuant to D.C.Cir. Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint be affirmed. As a jurisdictional prerequisite to a district court action seeking a refund of federal income tax that has been erroneously assessed or collected, the taxpayer must pay the challenged tax in full. See Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63, 75, 78 S.Ct. 1079, 2 L.Ed.2d 1165 (1958), aff'd on reh’g, 362 U.S. 145, 80 S.Ct. 630, 4 L.Ed.2d 623 (1960). Appellant makes no claim that she has done so. Moreover, appellant’s claim that she owes no federal income tax because compliance with the federal tax laws is voluntary is patently frivolous and fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir.1990). The district court therefore correctly dismissed appellant’s complaint.

Pursuant to D.C.Cir. Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 F. App'x 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-rossotti-cadc-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack