1

No. 126,356

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STEPHEN ALAN MACOMBER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF KANSAS and JEFF ZMUDA, SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Appellees.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1.

An inmate's COVID-19 economic stimulus payments are not "government 

benefits" exempt from a forced savings account under the Kansas Department of 

Corrections' Internal Management Policy and Procedure (IMPP) 04-103A.

Appeal from Shawnee District Court, LORI D. DOUGHERTY-BICHSEL, judge. Submitted without 

oral argument. Opinion filed December 15, 2023. Affirmed.

Stephen Alan Macomber, appellant pro se.

Fred W. Phelps, Jr., deputy chief legal counsel, of Kansas Department of Corrections, for 

appellees.

Before MALONE, P.J., GARDNER and CLINE, JJ.

GARDNER, J.: In 2021, Stephen Alan Macomber, a prisoner at the El Dorado 

Correctional Facility, was sent funds from the United States Department of the Treasury

under various COVID-19 pandemic relief acts passed by the United States Congress. 

When the prison received those funds, it diverted one tenth of their amount into 

Macomber's forced savings trust account which Macomber cannot access until he is 

released from prison. Macomber then filed a pro se Petition to Remedy a Breach of Trust 
2

seeking to get those funds out of forced savings. The State of Kansas responded by 

moving to dismiss the petition and the Shawnee County District Court granted that

motion, giving rise to this appeal. After careful review, we affirm the dismissal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States Congress enacted 

three pieces of legislation aimed at blunting the pandemic's potential fallout. First, in 

March 2020, it enacted the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act

(CARES), which provided funds up to $1,200 to all citizens, permanent residents, and 

qualifying resident aliens. 26 U.S.C. § 6428(a)(1). Second, in December 2020, Congress 

enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA), which provided funds up to $600.

26 U.S.C. § 6428A(a)(1). Third, in March 2021, Congress passed the American Rescue 

Plan Act (ARPA), which provided funds up to $1,400. 26 U.S.C. § 6428B(a), (b)(1). We 

refer to these collectively as the COVID-19 economic stimulus payments. In 2021, 

Macomber received two deposits totaling $3,200 from the United States Department of 

the Treasury from these three COVID-19 relief acts.

On behalf of Macomber and other inmates, the Kansas Department of Corrections 

(KDOC) maintains "forced savings" accounts. These accounts are set up as a trust and are 

regulated under the Kansas Uniform Trust Code, K.S.A. 58a-101 et seq. See K.S.A. 58a102; K.S.A. 75-5211(c)(1); IMPP 04-103A, p. 1. The KDOC's Internal Management 

Policy and Procedure (IMPP) defines forced savings as a "savings account in which 10 

percent of incoming monies less any outstanding obligations is deposited and maintained 

until the resident's release from custody." IMPP 04-103A, p. 1. Under this forced savings 

procedure, KDOC deposited $320 of the $3,200 that Macomber received from the 

COVID-19 economic stimulus payments into Macomber's forced savings account. 
3

Macomber filed grievances about this with the KDOC. When those failed, he filed 

suit in the district court alleging a breach of trust under K.S.A. 58a-101 et seq., arguing 

that the stimulus money was a "government benefit" exempt from forced savings under

IMPP 04-103A. The State responded by moving to dismiss Macomber's petition, arguing

that the COVID-19 economic stimulus payments were not exempt from forced savings.

The district court held a hearing on the State's motion to dismiss. Although we 

have no transcript of this hearing in the record on appeal, we see from the district court's 

register of actions that the parties, including Macomber, appeared via Zoom and that the 

May 2022 version of IMPP 04-103A was admitted into evidence. The parties agreed that 

this IMPP was substantively the same as the version in effect when the forced savings of 

Macomber's COVID-19 economic stimulus payments occurred. 

The district court granted the State's motion to dismiss Macomber's petition. It 

held that the KDOC had the authority to withhold 10 percent of the COVID-19 economic 

stimulus payments to Macomber because that money was an advanced tax credit and not

an exempt "government benefit." Additionally, the district court held that Macomber had 

not lost the $320 because it would be returned to him under K.S.A. 58a-801 and K.S.A. 

2022 Supp. 58a-802 upon his release from incarceration.

Macomber timely appeals, raising solely a question of statutory interpretation and 

no constitutional issues.

DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR IN DISMISSING MACOMBER'S PETITION?

Macomber argues that the KDOC mismanaged his trust account (his forced 

savings account) under the Kansas Uniform Trust Code by subjecting an exempt 

government benefit to forced savings under IMPP 04-103A. The Code places a duty on a 

trustee to administer a trust "in good faith, in accordance with its terms and purposes and 
4

the interests of the beneficiaries, and in accordance with this code." K.S.A. 58a-801. The 

Code further requires a trustee to "administer the trust consistent with the terms of the 

trust and solely in the interests of the beneficiaries." K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 58a-802(a). 

Resolution of this substantive issue involves interpretation of several statutes, 

which presents a question of law over which we have unlimited review. Nauheim v. City 

of Topeka, 309 Kan. 145, 149, 432 P.3d 647 (2019). When interpreting statutes or 

regulations, we apply the fundamental rule of statutory construction that the intent of the 

Legislature governs if that intent can be determined. To ascertain legislative intent, we 

give common words their ordinary meaning. John Doe v. M.J., 315 Kan. 310, 320, 508 

P.3d 368 (2022). "Dictionary definitions are good sources for the 'ordinary, 

contemporary, common' meanings of words." Midwest Crane & Rigging, LLC v. Kansas 

Corporation Comm'n, 306 Kan. 845, 851, 397 P.3d 1205 (2017).

And the procedural posture of the case compels a similar standard of review. 

"Whether a district court erred by granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim 

is a question of law subject to unlimited review." Jayhawk Racing Properties v. City of 

Topeka, 313 Kan. 149, 154, 484 P.3d 250 (2021). We view the well-pleaded facts in a 

light most favorable to the plaintiff and assume as true those facts and any inferences 

reasonably drawn from them. If those facts and inferences state any claim upon which 

relief can be granted, then dismissal is improper. Dismissal is proper only when the 

allegations in the petition demonstrate the plaintiff does not have a claim. Kudlacik v. 

Johnny's Shawnee, Inc., 309 Kan. 788, 790, 440 P.3d 576 (2019); see K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 

60-212(b)(6).

The Kansas Legislature authorized the Secretary of Corrections to implement a 

forced savings account program for inmates' compensation. See K.S.A. 75-5211(b). That 

statute provides that the Secretary "shall establish programs . . . for withdrawing amounts 

from the compensation paid to inmates from all sources." K.S.A. 75-5211(b). Although 
5

the district court relied on this statute, the COVID-19 economic stimulus payments are 

not "compensation," as Macomber did not receive them in return for services rendered.

See Black's Law Dictionary 354 (11th ed. 2019) (defining compensation as 

"[r]emuneration and other benefits received in return for services rendered; esp., salary or 

wages"). Neither party points to a statute authorizing the KDOC to withdraw any amount 

from funds inmates receive that are not compensation.

Instead, both parties rely on a regulation—IMPP 04-103A. Kansas has 

promulgated regulations for its administration of the KDOC, and administrative

regulations adopted in accordance with the procedures set forth by the Legislature have 

the force and effect of law. K.S.A. 77-425; Village Villa v. Kansas Health Policy 

Authority, 296 Kan. 315, 320, 291 P.3d 1056 (2013). Neither party challenges the validity 

of IMPP 04-103A, so we consider it to be valid.

This regulation defines "Forced Savings" as "[a] savings account in which 10 

percent of incoming monies less any outstanding obligations is deposited and maintained 

until the resident's release from custody." IMPP 04-103A. The IMPP requires the prison 

to divert 10 percent of all funds an inmate receives from outside the facility into forced 

savings except for child support payments, government benefits, and money from certain 

state property claims. IMPP 04-103A.VI.A.

The parties tacitly agree that the COVID-19 payments were funds that inmate

Macomber received from outside the facility. The parties dispute only whether those

funds are "[g]overnment benefits." See IMPP 04-103A.VI.A. That term is not defined in

IMPP 04-103A.

We find some guidance, however, in another regulation which prohibits certain 

government benefits from being used to pay an inmate's fines, fees, or payments: "No 

resident funds shall be subjected to collection for fines, fees or payments if those funds 
6

were accrued from any of the following sources: 1. Social security benefits; 2. Veterans'

Administration benefits; or, 3. Workers' compensation benefits paid to the resident 

garnishee." IMPP 04-106A.II.D.

Under this regulation, funds paid by social security, Veterans Administration, and 

workers compensation are each stated to be "benefits," and since they are paid by the 

government, they are "[g]overnment benefits." See IMPP 04-106A.II.D.; IMPP 04-

103A.VI.A. Thus those funds cannot be used for fines, fees, or payments. And because 

those funds are government benefits, in addition to being exempt from being used to pay 

an inmate's fines, fees, or payments under IMPP 04-106A, they are also exempt from

forced savings under IMPP 04-103A.

We next look to the statutes that authorized Macomber's receipt of the COVID-19

economic stimulus payments to determine whether they are similarly "government 

benefits." All three statutes style the COVID-19 economic stimulus payments as 

advances of a credit toward income tax refunds. 26 U.S.C. § 6428(a)(1) states "[i]n the 

case of an eligible individual, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed 

by subtitle A for the first taxable year beginning in 2020 an amount equal to the sum 

of . . . $1,200." Likewise, 26 U.S.C. § 6428A(a)(1) states "in the case of an eligible 

individual, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by subtitle A for the 

first taxable year beginning in 2020 an amount equal to the sum of . . . $600." Similarly, 

26 U.S.C. § 6428B(a) states "there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by 

subtitle A for the first taxable year beginning in 2021 an amount equal to the 2021 rebate 

amount determined for such taxable year." 26 U.S.C. § 6428B(b)(1) elaborates, in 

pertinent part, "the term '2021 rebate amount' means, with respect to any taxpayer for any 

taxable year, the sum of . . . $1,400." The plain language of these statutes shows that the 

disputed COVID-19 relief money is a tax credit. 
7

So is a tax credit a "[g]overnment benefit" as that term is used in IMPP 04-

103A.VI.A.? A "tax credit" is "[a]n amount subtracted directly from one's total tax 

liability, dollar for dollar, as opposed to a deduction from gross income." Black's Law 

Dictionary 1762 (11th ed. 2019). Described differently, "[a] tax credit is the public sector 

equivalent of a coupon; it reduces the amount that is otherwise owed." United States v. 

Hoffman, 901 F.3d 523, 538 (5th Cir. 2018). On the other hand, a "benefit" is defined as 

"[f]inancial assistance that is received from an employer, insurance, or a public program 

(such as social security) in time of sickness, disability, or unemployment." Black's Law 

Dictionary 194 (11th ed. 2019). See Government benefits, https://www.usa.gov/benefits 

(including retirement benefits, TANF, food stamps, Medicaid and CHIP, and survivor 

benefits).

Arguably, the COVID-19 economic stimulus payments were financial assistance 

from a public program in time of sickness or unemployment, within the broadest

definition of government benefits. But they were not funds sent to Macomber 

individually to assist him with his sickness or unemployment, or after he qualified for 

government financial assistance, unlike social security benefits, Veterans Administration 

benefits, or workers compensation benefits. Rather, the COVID-19 economic stimulus 

payments were paid to all qualifying citizens, permanent residents, and resident aliens,

and were paid regardless of that person's need or their qualification for assistance, as the 

district court aptly explained:

"A tax credit or advanced tax refund is arguably not the same as a benefit derived under, 

for example, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or Social Security 

Disability Insurance (SSDI) programs, which both maintain strict eligibility 

requirements. In contrast to these needs-based programs, stimulus monies were paid to all 

citizens, permanent residents, and qualifying resident aliens, according to the IRS. Those 

earning above a set threshold received less money, but they still maintained their 

eligibility. So, while typical government benefit programs are arguably aimed at shoring 

up a low-income or disabled person's safety net, stimulus payments are designed to 
8

stimulate the economy. See In re Arthur, No. 09-04332-ALS7, 2010 WL 4674450, at *4 

(Bankr. S.D. Iowa Oct. 20, 2010) (primary motive for 2008 stimulus payment was to 

stimulate the economy during a recession); see also In re Wooldridge, 393 B.R. 721, 728 

(Bankr. D. Idaho 2008) (same)." 

We agree with this reasoned analysis. The COVID-19 economic stimulus 

payments to Macomber are not "government benefits" as that term is used in IMPP 04-

103A.VI.A., or as included in IMPP 04-106A.II.D. Rather, they are tax credits designed 

to stimulate the economy.

"[T]he very name 'COVID-19 economic stimulus payments' suggests that the payments 

were intended to stimulate the economy by providing additional money for consumer 

spending rather than establish a government-sponsored program akin to public assistance. 

See Benjamin Curry, Korrena Bailie, What Is Fiscal Stimulus? How Does It Work?, Feb. 

19, 2022, https://www.forbes.com/advisor/personal-finance/fiscal-stimulus-packages 

('Direct Subsidies—aka Stimulus Checks[:] Perhaps the most effective means of 

providing fiscal stimulus is via direct payments to citizens. Give a person money, and 

chances are they'll spend it on something, so the theory goes'). Indeed, '[o]ne of the 

cornerstones of the CARES Act were the much-lauded stimulus checks[.]' Id. While I 

recognize that many recipients used the COVID-19 economic stimulus payments on 

household expenses, that reality does not transform the stimulus payments into public 

assistance." Groff v. Groff, No. 956 MDA 2021, 2022 WL 1641002, at *11 (Pa. Super. 

Ct. 2022) (unpublished opinion) (Bowes, J., dissenting).

Thus, under the authority of IMPP 04-103A, KDOC properly deposited "10 percent of 

incoming monies" from the COVID-19 economic stimulus payments into Macomber's 

forced savings account and can maintain it until his release from custody.
9

Because the allegations in the petition demonstrate that Macomber does not have a 

claim, we affirm the district court's decision to dismiss Macomber's petition.

Affirmed.