Williams, et al v. CIR

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19- 60804

ANTHONY DWAYNE WILLIAMS, T’ESHKA RENYELL YOUNG,

Petitioners - Appellants

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent - Appellee

Appeal from the United States Tax Court
Tax Court Case No. 26670-17L
Tax Court Case No. 26671-17L

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ignoring the Sixteenth Amendment, appellants argue that an income tax
on their wages is unconstitutional. What we said years ago in rejecting the
appeal of a tax protestor still rings true: “We perceive no need to refute these
arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so
might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.” Crain v.
Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984). Moreover, appellants were
not allowed to challenge their underlying tax liability in the collection due

*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5
TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 16, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-60804 Document: 00515385036 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2020

No. 19-60804
2
process hearing because they had previously received notices of deficiency for
the tax years at issue but did not dispute that tax liability. I.R.C. §
6330(c)(2)(B). Although Anthony Williams could challenge the imposition of
his frivolous-return penalty in the due process hearing—he did not receive a
deficiency notice for that penalty or otherwise have an earlier opportunity to
contest, that penalty was proper. See I.R.C. § 6702(a), 2(A) (allowing a penalty
of $5,000 if the person files an incorrect return “based on a position which the
Secretary has identified as frivolous”). As we noted at the outset, Williams’s
position that he did not receive wages because he was a “non-federal worker”
paid by a private employer is frivolous. And the Commissioner has recognized
it as such. IRS Notice 2010-33(III)(7) (citing Revenue Ruling 2006-18).
AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-60804 Document: 00515385036 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2020