Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/787/540/197830/
Timestamp: 2019-10-17 17:50:35
Document Index: 670873420

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7203', '§ 7205', '§ 3231', '§ 6301', '§ 6012', '§ 1']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kenneth M. Tedder, Defendant-appellant, 787 F.2d 540 (10th Cir. 1986) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Tenth Circuit › 1986 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kenneth M. Tedder, Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kenneth M. Tedder, Defendant-appellant, 787 F.2d 540 (10th Cir. 1986)
US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 787 F.2d 540 (10th Cir. 1986) April 4, 1986
In accordance with 10th Cir.R. 9(e) and Fed. R. App. P. 34(a), this appeal came on for consideration on the briefs and the record on appeal.
* Defendant Kenneth M. Tedder was charged in a two count indictment with violations of the income tax laws. Count I charged that during calendar year 1980 Tedder, a resident of Wichita, Kansas, received a gross income of $19,261.35; that, because he received this income, he was required to file with the Internal Revenue Service no later than April 15, 1981 an income tax return listing specifically the items of his gross income and any deductions and credits to which he was entitled; and that he willfully and knowingly failed to file a return for 1980, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. Count II charged that Tedder supplied his employer, Cessna Aircraft Company, with a fraudulent withholding certificate (form W-4), on which he claimed exemption from withholding when he knew he did not qualify for exempt status, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7205. I R. 1-2.
The trial court denied Tedder's application to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Defendant apparently has not renewed that petition before this court or ordered a transcript of the trial proceedings in accordance with Rule 10(b), Fed. R. App. P. Therefore, the record on appeal contains no transcript of the trial.2 II
The Sixteenth Amendment specifically empowers Congress to enact an income tax. U.S. Const., amend. XVI. Courts have long recognized that Congress' authority under that amendment includes the authority to enact criminal sanctions for violation of the Internal Revenue Code such as those under which appellant stands convicted here. See, O'Brien v. United States, 51 F.2d 193, 196 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 284 U.S. 673, 52 S. Ct. 129, 76 L. Ed. 569 (1931). Federal district courts have original exclusive jurisdiction over all offenses against the laws of the United States, see 18 U.S.C. § 3231, including criminal matters arising under Title 26. United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 749 (7th Cir. 1985).
This argument is without merit as its premise--that the tax system is somehow "voluntary"--is incorrect. Persons who meet the requisite statutory definition are required to pay income taxes.3 As the district judge pointed out, although Treasury regulations establish voluntary compliance as the general method of income tax collection, Congress gave the Secretary of the Treasury the power to enforce the income tax laws through involuntary collection. See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq. The IRS' efforts to obtain compliance with the tax laws are entirely proper.
We have long rejected arguments such as those appellant makes here for lack of merit. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 600 F.2d 248, 259 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 917, 100 S. Ct. 233, 62 L. Ed. 2d 172 (1979).B. Appellant's right to counsel claim
Defendant's argument that the trial court denied him his right to counsel lacks merit. "We have consistently held that the Sixth Amendment does not afford an accused the right to be represented by lay counsel." United States v. Gigax, 605 F.2d 507, 517 n. 1 (10th Cir. 1979); United States v. Irwin, 561 F.2d 198, 200 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1012, 98 S. Ct. 725, 54 L. Ed. 2d 755 (1978). The term "counsel" refers to "a person authorized to practice law." Id.
Since appellant has provided us with no evidentiary basis on which to evaluate this claim of privilege, he has not properly raised it. Ueckert v. Commissioner, 721 F.2d 248, 250 (8th Cir. 1983). We must therefore hold appellant to the requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 10(b) and conclude that, by failing to obtain a copy of the trial transcript, appellant waived any claim concerning the sufficiency of the evidence at trial.
26 U.S.C. § 6012 requires "every individual" to file "returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A ...". 26 U.S.C. § 1 imposes a tax on every individual whose income exceeds the totals set out in the table listed in that section. Further, wages are taxable within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment. Latham, supra, 754 F.2d at 750
To convict appellant, the jury necessarily concluded that appellant was a "taxpayer" within the meaning of the applicable statutes. Since there is no claim the jury was improperly instructed on this issue, appellant cannot attack the jury's finding unless he can show it lacks support in the record. However, since appellant failed to file a transcript of the trial as part of the record on appeal, we are unable to evaluate his claim and must deem it waived. Fed. R. App. P. 10(b). Thus, to the extent appellant's argument rests on the contention he is not a "taxpayer" within the meaning of the applicable statutes, it also lacks merit.