* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** Honorable John W. Lungstrum, District Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation.

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 10/28/96

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JOHN COX,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 95-9025

Appeal from U.S. Tax Court

(T.C. No. 8561-95)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BALDOCK and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges, and LUNGSTRUM,** District

Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

Petitioner John Cox appeals from an order of the United States Tax Court

upholding a notice of deficiency issued by the Internal Revenue Service. We

affirm.

The government filed a notice of tax deficiency against Mr. Cox in tax

court. Mr. Cox responded asserting he was not liable for the deficiency because

he is not identified as a taxpayer in the tax code. He did not deny that he had

received the income attributed to him or that the government’s determinations

were erroneous. The tax court found the deficiency correct as charged.

On appeal, Mr. Cox argues the government cannot use a deficiency

procedure to collect a “Qualified State Individual Income Tax.” Petitioner’s br. at

2. He also asserts that the deficiency notice was defective and unenforceable and

federal law does not apply to him because he is not a taxpayer, but a state citizen. 

He contends the federal government has jurisdiction only where it has established

ownership of the identified property and has produced documentation that the

state ceded the property to the federal government waiving all jurisdiction over it.

Mr. Cox did not present any evidence to the tax court contesting the

amounts owed as computed by the government. Absent such evidence, we must

uphold the tax court’s determination.
-3-

On appeal, Mr. Cox argues the government cannot use a deficiency

procedure to collect a “Qualified State Individual Income Tax.” This argument

appears to be an assertion that the Notice of Deficiency he received concerned

state taxes, not federal. Mr. Cox concludes that the deficiency notice was

defective and unenforceable because the “Commissioner is not authorized to issue

a Notice of Deficiency for the collection of Qualified State Individual Income

Taxes.” Appellant’s br. at 4.

This argument is frivolous and without merit. The Notice of Deficiency

was issued by the Department of the Treasury--Internal Revenue Service and

contained an assessment of Mr. Cox’s deficiency under the federal tax code. 

R. Vol. I at 4, ex. A. The government was not attempting to collect any state tax

which may also be due. Therefore, use of the deficiency form was not error.

Mr. Cox asserts federal law does not apply to him because he is not a

taxpayer, but a state citizen. All citizens of the United States are liable for

income taxes and every person born in the United States is a citizen of the United

States. See 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1(b)(c); cf. Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440,

1448 (10th Cir. 1990)(rejecting argument that individual who is a citizen of a

state is not a person under Internal Revenue Code as "completely lacking in legal

merit and patently frivolous"). This argument is without merit.
-4-

Finally, Mr. Cox contends the federal government has jurisdiction only

where it has established ownership of the identified property and has produced

documentation that the state ceded the property to the federal government waiving

all jurisdiction over it. This argument echoes the "hackneyed tax protester refrain

that federal . . . jurisdiction only extends to the District of Columbia, United

States territorial possessions and ceded territories." United States v. Collins, 920

F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991). As in Collins,

we consider this argument to be one that “defies credulity.” Id. For eighty years,

the Supreme Court has recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a

direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not

just in federal enclaves. See Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19

(1916).

The government has moved for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38 in

the amount of $2,000.00. Mr. Cox has had the opportunity to respond to this

motion, but has failed to do so. See Braley v. Campbell, 832 F.2d 1504, 1515

(10th Cir. 1987); Lonsdale, 919 F.2d at 1447 (applying Braley notice requirement

to pro se litigants).

An appeal is frivolous for purposes of Rule 38 when the bulk of a party’s

assertions to the district court and this court constitute a refrain about the

government's power to tax individuals. Mr. Cox’s arguments, as noted above,
-5-

have been continually rejected by the courts. Arguments reflecting such

contemptuous disregard for established legal authority have no place in this court. 

"Courts are in no way obligated to tolerate arguments that thoroughly defy

common sense." Charczuk v. Commissioner, 771 F.2d 471, 475 (10th Cir. 1985). 

Further, the government has no obligation to bear the burden of meritless

litigation. Id. at 476. The government’s motion for sanctions is GRANTED.

Mr. Cox has moved to strike all statements in the government’s brief

referring to him as a taxpayer and to his failure to file tax returns. This motion is

DENIED. The decision of the tax court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue

forthwith.

Entered for the Court

John W. Lungstrum 

District Judge