Case ID: f-appx_29/html/0619-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James E. ANDERSON; Cheryl J. Latos, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Appellee.
    No. 01-2135.
    United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
    March 14, 2002.
    James E. Anderson and Cheryl J. Latos, on brief, pro se.
    Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth L. Greene and A. Wray Muoio, Attorneys, Tax Division, Department of Justice, and Margaret E. Curran, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
    Before LYNCH, Circuit Judge, LEVIN H. CAMPBELL and STAHL, Senior Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

After carefully reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we affirm the decision below.

The appellants’ central contention is that Treas. Reg. § 31.3102-1(c) does not provide adequate authority for collecting the employee portion of FICA taxes from them. Contrary to the appellants’ argumerit, however, IRS has rule-making authority for FICA taxes, and the regulations are afforded the usual deference. United States v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., 532 U.S. 200, 121 S.Ct. 1433, 149 L.Ed.2d 401 (2001).

The appellants’ remaining arguments fail for substantially the reasons stated by the district court at the hearing.

Affirmed. Loc. R. 27(c).