green
Positive treatment
Doctrinal family (anchor): Glenn Crain v. Commissioner of I… ↗
Quoted verbatim 36×
91.1 score
Quick Summary
Courts are not required to address meritless tax challenges consisting of unsupported assertions and legalistic gibberish designed to obstruct governmental authority.
A taxpayer appeals the dismissal of a petition challenging the constitutional authority of the Tax Court and the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service to levy income taxes. The taxpayer asserts that he is not subject to state jurisdiction and that the Tax Court unconstitutionally exercises Article III powers. The court applies the principle that the constitutionality of the federal income tax system and the authority of the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax Court are long-established. Because the appeal consists of unsupported assertions and legalistic gibberish, the court affirms the dismissal and imposes sanctions for a frivolous proceeding.
G Cite
cited 120× by 118 distinct cases, 1984–2026 · 6 courts→ Stable ·
…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.
at p. 1417
✓
Topic ↗
cited 63× by 62 distinct cases, 1998–2022 · 2 courts↓ Fading ·
…with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.
at p. 1417
✓
Topic ↗
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2021–2023 · 2 courts ·
…hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish,
at p. 1418
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#10
26 U.S.C. § 6673
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ryan Charles Minnig
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Arlin George Hatfield, III & Jennifer Hatfield
we perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber rea- soning and copious citation of precedent . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Arlin George Hatfield, III & Jennifer Marie Willis Hatfield
we perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber rea- soning and copious citation of precedent . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Francis Steffan Hayes v. Commissioner
we perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; -12- to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Paul Staples v. Commissioner
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Peter E. Hendrickson & Doreen M. Hendrickson v. Commissioner
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Peter E. Hendrickson & Doreen M. Hendrickson v. Commissioner
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Winslow v. Commissioner
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Muncy v. Comm'r
we perceive no need to refute petitioner's arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that his arguments have some colorable merit.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Salmonson v. Comm'r
we perceive no need to refute these frivolous arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kernan v. Comm'r
we perceive no need to refute these frivolous arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Bowers v. Comm'r
we perceive no need to 136 refute petitioner's arguments with somber 135 reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that his arguments have some colorable merit.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Waltner v. Comm'r
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hill v. Comm'r
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Nelson v. Comm'r
we perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and 242 copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jenkins v. Comm'r
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Devlin v. Comm'r
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Alderman v. Comm'r
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Holmes v. Comm'r
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Simmons v. Comm'r
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hawkins v. Comm'r
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
McQuatters v. Commissioner
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Sanders v. Commissioner
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Borders v. Commissioner
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Coleman
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
SCHECKEL
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Call
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hiland
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Carrillo
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Wheeler
we perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest these arguments have some colorable merit.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Wright
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Johnston
we perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; 250 to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Comm'r
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
rivera-v-commr
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
GAVIGAN
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Holmes
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Travis Dale Istre v. Internal Revenue Service
Plaintiff next argues that any attempt to tax his wages is unconstitutional under the Sixteenth Amendment because income tax is an “excise” and therefore a taxpayer’s “earnings could only qualify as taxable . . . if they are products of privileged activities.”7 Although Plaintiff does not clarify how this argument applies to his claim 6 ECF No. 5. 7 ECF No. 13 at 6. 5 for relief, the Fifth Circuit has long rejected arguments that “[i]gnor[e] the Sixteenth Amendment” and assert that “an income tax on [] wages is unconstitutional.” Williams v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 801 …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Billy James Vicknair v. Cyrus Family, et al.
In Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation v. Louisiana, 943 F.3d 1004, 1006 (5th Cir. 2019), the plaintiff alleged that he was entitled to a “declaration of rights guaranteed . . . by the 1795 Spanish Treaty with the Catholic Majesty of Spain and the 1800 French Treaty with the former Christian Majesty of France[,]” and that the United States and Louisiana were trying to “monopolize intergalactic foreign trade.” The court opined: “We will not try to decipher what any of this means. ‘[T]o do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.’” Id. (quoting Crain v. Comm'r…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Christopher L. Huber & Ashley M. Huber
Petitioners offer only the frivolous assertion that Petitioner Ashley Huber’s earnings are not “legitimate activities of taxation.” Courts generally do not address frivolous 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).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kent Trembly
Courts generally do not address frivolous 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).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Esquivel v. United States of America Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service
Federal courts routinely reject such arguments as “nonsensical and wholly without merit.” Id.; see also U.S. v. Montgomery, 778 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1985) (characterizing “sovereign” citizen’s arguments against the authority of the IRS to collect federal income taxes as “frivolous” and “the time-worn arguments of those persons who are attempting to avoid their fair share of the costs of the government that organizes the society in which they live”); Crain v. Comm’r, 737 F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir. 1984) (characterizing petitioner’s claim that IRS lacked jurisdiction �…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Esquivel v. United States of America Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service
Federal courts routinely reject such arguments as “nonsensical and wholly without merit.” Id.; see also U.S. v. Montgomery, 778 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1985) (characterizing “sovereign” citizen’s arguments against the authority of the IRS to collect federal income taxes as “frivolous” and “the time-worn arguments of those persons who are attempting to avoid their fair share of the costs of the government that organizes the society in which they live”); Crain v. Comm’r, 737 F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir. 1984) (characterizing petitioner’s claim that IRS lacked jurisdiction �…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Peter Joseph Isaiah Gibbons O'Connor
“We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent . . . .” Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Christopher Aubuchon
Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. CIR
The Commissioner is not required to rebut Johnson’s frivolous argument 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).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Miles 237011 v. Quainton
In that, “equitable liens” by their very nature constitutes a “Substitution” or type of “COMPENSATORY RELIEF,[”] rather than a specific form of relief in the actual equitable claim itself, and since this action, in and of itself, has a clear commercial “value” as “Arguable” claims are . . . settled, bought, and sold” . . . as stated in Bell v. Johnson, 308 F.3d 594 , 603–609 (6th Cir. 2002), with clear commercial application, the debt against the defendants herein claimed may be Reduced in value, sold, traded, assigned, and/or To the extent Plaintiff’s arguments are r…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sharp v. Wrigglesworth
Crain v. Comm’r, 737 F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir. 1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Matter of the Estate of Tudela
Crain v. Comm’r, 737 F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir. 1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stephen R. Kelley & Isabelle Kelley
Although we could diagnose the patent faults of these further arguments in detail, we generally decline to refute frivolous arguments “with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.” Funk v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 213, 217 (2004) (quoting Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lawrence James Saccato
(CCH) 192 (citing Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Glenn CRAIN, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
84-4268.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Aug 6, 1984.
737 F.2d 1417
1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 19800
Glenn Crain, pro se., Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Paup, Chief, Appellate Sec., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Fred T. Goldberg, Jr., Chief Counsel, IRS, Gary R. Allen, Douglas G. Coulter, Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent-ap-pellee.
Reavley, Politz, Higginbotham.
Cited by 522 opinions | Published
Citer courts: U.S. Tax Court (24)
PER CURIAM:
Glenn Crain appeals from the dismissal of his Tax Court petition challenging the constitutional authority of that body and defying the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service to levy taxes on his income. Crain asserts that he “is not subject to the jurisdiction, taxation, nor regulation of the state,” that the “Internal Revenue Service, Incorporated” lacks authority to exercise the judicial power of the United States, that the Tax Court is unconstitutionally attempting to exercise Article III powers, and that jurisdiction over his person has never been affirmatively proven.
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. The constitutionality of our income tax system — including the role[*1418] played within that system by the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax Court—has long been established. We affirm the dismissal of Crain’s spurious “petition” and the assessment of a penalty imposed by the Tax Court for instituting a frivolous proceeding. 26 U.S.C. § 6673.
The government asks us to assess penalties against Crain for bringing this frivolous appeal, as is authorized by Fed.R.App.P. 38. In Parker v. C.I.R., 724 F.2d 469, 472 (5th Cir.1984), we sounded “a cautionary note to those who would persistently raise arguments against the income tax which have been put to rest for years. The full range of sanctions in Rule 38 hereafter shall be summoned in response to a totally frivolous appeal.”
We are sensitive to the need for the courts to remain open to all who seek in good faith to invoke the protection of law. An appeal that lacks merit is not always— or often—frivolous. However, we are not obliged to suffer in silence the filing of baseless, insupportable appeals presenting no colorable claims of error and designed only to delay, obstruct, or incapacitate the operations of the courts or any other governmental authority. Crain’s present appeal is of this sort. It is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish. The government should not have been put to the trouble of responding to such spurious arguments, nor this court to the trouble of “adjudicating” this meritless appeal.
Accordingly, we grant the government’s request. The United States shall recover from appellant Crain twice its cost of this appeal. Additionally, we assess against Crain a damage award of $2000 in favor of the appellee United States.
AFFIRMED.