- -7
defendant's failure to file returns was willful, which was a
necessary element of proof in that criminal case.
In Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986),
affg. an order of this Court granting summary judgment in favor
of respondent, in a case similar to this case, cited by
respondent in her motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court
specifically held that the arguments made by the taxpayer that
the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes only excise taxes and excise
taxes will be imposed only on Government granted privileges, were
"tired arguments that were frivolous". In Martin v.
Commissioner, 756 F.2d 38, 40 (6th Cir. 1985), affg. T.C. Memo.
1983-473, also cited by respondent in her motion for judgment on
the pleadings, the Court of Appeals, in disposing of a taxpayer's
argument that the Supreme Court had held that an income tax is an
excise tax, which can only be assessed against those either
licensed or incorporated, stated:
This argument is baseless. In Brushaber
[Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1
(1916)], the Court found the 1913 income tax law to be
constitutional. The Court also noted that in Pollock
[Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601
(1895)] it had previously found the taxing of income
from professions, trades, employments or vocations to
be constitutional in the form of an excise tax. In
light of the sixteenth amendment, however, all taxation
of income, "from whatever source derived," was found to
be constitutional in Brushaber. A multitude of cases
following Brushaber have held that the type of revenues
and receipts earned by appellant, a substantial farmer,
constitute taxable income under the Internal Revenue
Code. * * *
Martin v. Commissioner, supra at 40.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011