green
Positive treatment
20.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Paulson
BACKGROUND A. In 1982, Stephen Mark Paulson, the debt- or, determined that the U.S. income tax laws were unconstitutional, and he proceeded to file “protest tax returns” which “responded to every item of information called for with an asterisk reference to a footnote invoking a series of constitutional amendments.” Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61, 62 (2d Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kamerman v. Steinberg
Cf. Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61, 62 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam) (appellant's position "entirely without merit"); In re Hartford Textile Corp., 659 F.2d 299 , 303 (2d Cir.1981) (appeal "frivolous and wholly lacking in merit"), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1018 , 102 S.Ct. 1714 , 72 L.Ed.2d 136 (1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kamerman v. Steinberg
Cf. Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61, 62 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam) (appellant’s position “entirely without merit”); In re Hartford Textile Corp., 659 F.2d 299 , 303 (2d Cir.1981) (appeal “frivolous and wholly lacking in merit”), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1018 , 102 S.Ct. 1714 , 72 L.Ed.2d 136 (1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Leogrande v. United States
Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61, 62 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam); accord, Eicher v. United States, 774 F.2d 27, 29 (1st Cir.1985) (per curiam); Ricket v. United States, 773 F.2d 1214, 1216 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Hudson v. United States, 766 F.2d 1288, 1291 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Boomer v. United States, 755 F.2d 696, 697 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Betz v. United States, 753 F.2d 834, 835 (10th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Brennan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 752 F.2d 187, 189 (6th Cir.1984) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Leogrande v. United States
Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61, 62 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam); accord, Eicher v. United States, 774 F.2d 27, 29 (1st Cir.1985) (per curiam); Ricket v. United States, 773 F.2d 1214, 1216 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Hudson v. United States, 766 F.2d 1288, 1291 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Boomer v. United States, 755 F.2d 696, 697 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Betz v. United States, 753 F.2d 834, 835 (10th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Brennan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 752 F.2d 187, 189 (6th Cir.1984) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Conrad and Debra Himes v. United States of America and Internal Revenue Service
See Dallo v. INS, 765 F.2d 581, 589 (6th Cir. 1985); Stelly v. Commissioner, supra; Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61, 62 (2nd Cir. 1985) (per curiam); Anderson v. United States, supra, 754 F.2d at 1272 . 6 It is also clear that the district court properly denied the plaintiffs' request construed as a motion to disqualify him under 28 U.S.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Harold N. Sisemore, and Jacqueline E. Sisemore v. United States of America and Internal Revenue Service
See Dallo v. I.N.S., 765 F.2d 581, 589 (6th Cir.1985); Stelly v. C.I.R., supra; Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61, 62 (2nd Cir.1985); Anderson v. United States, 754 F.2d at 1272 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Donald H. Mathes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Cases from other circuits sanctioning taxpayers for pursuing frivolous appeals include the following: Eicher v. United States, 774 F.2d 27, 30 (1st Cir.1985) (pro se appellant assessed double costs); Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61, 62 (2d Cir.1985) (pro se appellant assessed double costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees); United States v. Isenhower, 754 F.2d 489, 490 (3d Cir.1985) (tax protester, in pro se appeal from criminal conviction, ordered to show cause why damages and single or double costs should not be imposed); Sparrow v. Commissioner, 748 F.2d 914, 915-16 (4th Cir.1984) (app…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kem & Cathy Clark v. United States of America and Internal Revenue Service
See Dallo v. I.N.S., 765 F.2d 581, 589 (6th Cir. 1985); Stelly v. C.I.R., supra; Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61, 62 (2nd Cir. 1985); Anderson v. United States, supra, 754 F.2d at 1272 . 6 Finally, we believe double costs and attorney fees should be imposed against the plaintiffs because they have brought a frivolous appeal involving issues which have already been clearly resolved.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Billy H. Burlison and Wanda S. Burlison v. United States
See Dallo v. I.N.S., 765 F.2d 581, 589 (6th Cir. 1985); Stelly v. C.I.R., supra; Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61, 62 (2nd Cir. 1985); Anderson v. United States, supra, 754 F.2d at 1272 . 5 Finally, we believe double costs and attorney fees should be imposed against the plaintiffs because they have brought a frivolous appeal involving issues which have already been clearly resolved.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jerry D. Fertig and Bonnie L. Fertig v. United States of America and Internal Revenue Service
See Dallo v. I.N.S., 765 F.2d 581, 589 (6th Cir. 1985); Stelly v. C.I.R., supra; Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61, 62 (2nd Cir. 1985); Anderson v. United States, supra, 754 F.2d at 1272 . 6 Finally, we believe double costs and attorney fees should be imposed against the plaintiffs because they have brought a frivolous appeal involving issues which have already been clearly resolved.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Donnelly L. Sisemore v. United States
See Dallo v. I.N.S., 765 F.2d 581, 589 (6th Cir. 1985); Stelly v. C.I.R., supra; Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61, 62 (2nd Cir. 1985); Anderson v. United States, supra, 754 F.2d at 1272 . 6 Finally, we believe double costs and attorney fees should be imposed against the plaintiff because he has brought a frivolous appeal involving issues which have already been clearly resolved.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert W. Berggren and Solange H. Berggren v. United States of America and Internal Revenue Service
See Dallo v. I.N.S., 765 F.2d 581, 589 (6th Cir. 1985); Stelly v. C.I.R., supra; Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61, 62 (2nd Cir. 1985); Anderson v. United States, supra, 754 F.2d at 1272 . 5 Finally, we believe double costs and attorney fees should be imposed against the plaintiffs because they have brought a frivolous appeal involving issues which have already been clearly resolved.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Danny C. Landers v. United States of America and Internal Revenue Service
See Dallo v. I.N.S., 765 F.2d 581, 589 (6th Cir. 1985); Stelly v. C.I.R., supra; Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61, 62 (2nd Cir. 1985); Anderson v. United States, supra, 754 F.2d at 1272 . 6 Finally, we believe double costs and attorney fees should be imposed against the plaintiff because he has brought a frivolous appeal involving issues which have already been clearly resolved.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harold N. Sisemore, and Jacqueline E. Sisemore v. United States of America and Internal Revenue Service
See Dallo v. I.N.S., 765 F.2d 581, 589 (6th Cir. 1985); Stelly v. C.I.R., supra; Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61, 62 (2nd Cir. 1985); Anderson v. United States, supra, 754 F.2d at 1272 . 5 Finally, this Court concludes that double costs and attorney fees should likewise be imposed against the plaintiffs for bringing this appeal pursuant to Rule 38, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re American President Lines, Inc., Marshall P. Safir
Furbee v. Vantage Press, supra note 23, 150 U.S.App.D.C. at 328 , 464 F.2d at 837 ; Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61, 62 (2d Cir.1985); Hagerty v. Clement, 749 F.2d 217, 221-222 (5th Cir.1984); Perkins v. Commissioner, 746 F.2d 1187, 1189 (6th Cir.1984); Oglesby v. RCA Corp., 752 F.2d 272, 279-280 (7th Cir.1985); Tibbs v. Great Am.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martin T. Ricket v. United States
Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61, 62 (2d Cir.1985); Boomer v. United States, 755 F.2d 696, 697 (8th Cir.1985); Martinez v. Internal Revenue Service, 744 F.2d 71, 72-73 (10th Cir.1984), Ricket nevertheless appealed to this court.
discussed
Cited "see"
Peter Mone v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Ronald D. Brennan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Alexander C. Wert v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
See Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61 (2d Cir.1985). 16 This Court is also empowered to hold an attorney who "multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously" personally liable for excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees incurred as a result of his or her improper conduct. 28 U.S.C.
discussed
Cited "see"
Allen W. Jolly v. United States
See Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61, 62 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam); Boomer v. United States, 755 F.2d 696, 697 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Betz v. United States, 753 F.2d 834, 835 (10th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Borgeson v. United States, 757 F.2d 1071, 1073 (10th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Brennan v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d 187, 189 (6th Cir.1984) (per curiam); Heitman v. United States, 753 F.2d 33, 34-35 (6th Cir.1984) (per cu-riam); Davis v. United States Government, 742 F.2d 171, 172 (5th Cir.1984) (per curiam); Martinez v. IRS, 744 F.2d 71, 72 (10th Cir.1984) (per curiam); Baskin v. Unit…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Stephen M. PAULSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
887, Docket 84-6226.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Mar 22, 1985.
Stephen M. Paulson, submitted a brief pro se. •, Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Paup, Gary R. Allen, Bruce R. Ellisen, Attys., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., and Alan H. Nevas, U.S. Atty., New Haven, Conn., submitted a brief for defendant-appellee.
Timbers, Newman, Kearse.
Cited by 22 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
Stephen M. Paulson appeals from a judgment of the District Court for the District of Connecticut (Jose A. Cabranes, Judge) dismissing his complaint under 26 U.S.C. § 6703 for refund ■ of a civil penalty assessed against him by the Internal Revenue Service for filing a frivolous income tax return, id. § 6702(a). The return responded to every item of information called for with an asterisk reference to a footnote invoking a series of constitutional amend-' ments.
The appeal is as frivolous as the return for which appellant has been properly assessed a penalty. The Supreme Court has ruled that a self-incrimination claim “against every question on the tax return” would be “virtually frivolous.” Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 382 U.S. 70, 79, 86 S.Ct. 194, 199, 15 L.Ed.2d 165 (1965). See also United States v. Schiff, 612 F.2d 73, 77-78, 83 (2d Cir.1979).
Appellant’s challenges to the validity of the statute penalizing the submission of frivolous returns are entirely without merit.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, appellant is assessed double costs in this Court plus a reasonable attorney’s fee to the appellee in the amount of $2,500, to be paid to the United States within fourteen days of the date of this decision on pain of penalties for contempt. See Schiff v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir.1984) (per curiam). The mandate shall issue forthwith.