Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-02084/USCOURTS-ca4-19-02084-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-2084

RICHARD E. BOGGS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

 Defendant - Appellee,

and

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; C.K. 

O’NEAL,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:18-cv-01915-MGL)

Submitted: February 7, 2020 Decided: March 2, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard E. Boggs, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joel Branman, Michael J. Haungs, 

Supervisory Attorney, Tax Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-2084 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/02/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-2084 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/02/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Richard E. Boggs appeals from the district court’s order adopting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

Boggs sought damages for improperly withheld taxes, specifically from “compensation for 

services,” under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (2018). Boggs contends that “compensation for 

services” is not “gross income.” However, contrary to Boggs’ assertions, “compensation 

for services” is wages and, thus, taxable income. See e.g., United States v. Sullivan, 788 

F.2d 813, 815 (1st Cir. 1986) (noting that “[c]ourts uniformly have rejected as frivolous 

the arguments that money received in compensation for labor is not taxable income”); see 

also 26 U.S.C. § 61(a)(1) (2018) (including “[c]ompensation for services” in definition of 

“gross income”). Accordingly, the actions of the IRS employees did not violate the law, 

and Boggs has, thus, failed to state a claim under § 7433. Accordingly, we affirm. We 

dispense with oral argument because facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-2084 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/02/2020 Pg: 3 of 3