Darrell G. Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928 (11th Cir. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Darrell G. Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928 (11th Cir. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
39 citation events (37 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Everett Street v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (ca11, 2026-06-15)
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Everett Street v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
11th Cir. · 2026 · confidence medium
See Stubbs v. Comm’r, 797 F.2d 936, 938 (11th Cir. 1986) (explaining that the arguments that “wages are not taxable income and that [a citizen is] not a person required to file a tax return” “are patently frivolous”); Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir. 1986) (deeming frivolous the argument that income tax vio- lates the Sixteenth Amendment).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) George Teacherson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
11th Cir. · 2023 · confidence medium
See also Stubbs v. Comm’r, 797 F.2d 936, 938 (11th Cir. 1986) (explaining that the argu- ment that wages are not taxable income and that the appellant was not a person required to file a tax return to be like arguments “re- jected by courts at all levels of the judiciary and . . . patently frivo- lous”); Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir. 1986) 1 Groendyke Transportation, constitutes binding precedent in the Eleventh Cir- cuit under Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brian D. Swanson v. United States
11th Cir. · 2023 · confidence medium
Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir. 1986) (per cu- riam); see also Biermann v. Comm’r, 769 F.2d 707, 708 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (rejecting as frivolous the argument that wages are not “income”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brian D. Swanson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir. 1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brian D. Swanson v. United States
11th Cir. · 2020 · confidence medium
We have specifically held as frivolous arguments, including: that [taxpayers’] wages are not income subject to tax but are a tax on property such as their labor; that only public servants are subject to tax liability; [and] that withholding of tax from wages is a direct tax on the source of income without apportionment in violation of the Sixteenth Amendment . . . . 1 To the extent the Government argues Swanson waived any challenge to the jurisdictional finding (1) the district court made its jurisdictional finding based on the frivolity of Swanson’s position, so Swanson’s arguments rega…
cited Cited as authority (rule) David Loven Nelson v. Commissioner of IRS
11th Cir. · 2013 · confidence medium
See United States v. Morse, 532 F.3d 1130, 1132-33 (11th Cir.2008); Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir.1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robert W. Herriman v. Commissioner of IRS
11th Cir. · 2013 · confidence medium
We have rejected as frivolous the argument “that withholding of tax from wages is a direct tax on the source of income without apportionment in violation of the Sixteenth Amendment.” Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir.1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Morgan v. United States
11th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
Their arguments raise issues of statutory interpretation related to the meaning of the words: (1) “includes” and “including”; (2) “employment” and “self-employment”; (3) “trade or business”; (4) “self-employment income,” “net earnings from self-employment,” and “wages”; (5) “United States”; and (6) “State.” Their specific argument that income from work in the private sector is not subject to income tax has been rejected as frivolous by this Court in United States v. Morse, 532 F.3d 1130, 1132-33 (11th Cir.2008) (per curiam), and Motes v. United States, 7…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Martins v. United States
11th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir.1986) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Steve Martins vs USA
11th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) David Nelson v. United States
11th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
E.g., United States v. Morse, 532 F.3d 1130, 1132-33 (11th Cir.2008) (concluding that argument that individual’s income is not subject to federal taxation because his income “was derived from employment in the private sector” is “utterly without merit” and “frivolous”) (quotation marks omitted); Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir.1986) (rejecting argument that “only public servants are subject to tax liability”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Evangelos Lena
11th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir.1986) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Charles W. Barrett, Jr. v. United States
11th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir.1986) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pollinger v. Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board (2×)
11th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir.1986) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see" Taliaferro v. United States
11th Cir. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir. 1986) (determining as frivolous, among other things, arguments' that only public servants are subject to tax liability and that wages are not income subject to tax); Biermann v. C.I.R., 769 F.2d 707, 708 (11th Cir. 1985) (stating that similar arguments were “patently frivolous, have been rejected by courts at all levels of the judiciary, and ... warrant no further discussion”); see also United States v, Pilcher, 672 F.2d 875, 877 (11th Cir. 1982) (“Every income earner is required to file an income tax return.”).
discussed Cited "see" Irvine E. Tallaferro v. United States
11th Cir. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir. 1986) (determining as frivolous, among other things, 3 Taliaferro previously filed a materially similar lawsuit, which was likewise dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Anti-Injunction Act.
discussed Cited "see" Steve Martins vs USA (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
11th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
We have long held as frivolous claims that income “derived from employment in the private sector[] is not subject to federal taxation.” United States v. Morse, 532 F.3d 1130, 1132-33 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); see Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir. 1986) (rejecting argument that “only public servants are subject to tax liability”).
discussed Cited "see" Martins v. United States (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
11th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
We have long held as frivolous claims that income “derived from employment in the private sector[ ] is not subject to federal taxation.” United States v. Morse, 532 F.3d 1130, 1132-33 (11th Cir.2008) (per curiam); see Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir.1986) (rejecting argument that “only public servants are subject to tax liability”).
discussed Cited "see" Taliaferro v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
11th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir.1986) (determining as frivolous, among other things, argument that only public servants are subject to tax liability); United States v. Pilcher, 672 F.2d 875, 877 (11th Cir.1982) (every income earner is required to file an income tax return). 4 Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the tax court.
cited Cited "see" Borchert, Steven E. v. United States
7th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir.1986) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see" SIMANONOK
unknown court · Rob · signal: see · confidence high
See Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928 (11th Cir. 1986) (citing Simanonok v. Commissioner, supra , for the proposition that claims such as wages are not income subject to tax are frivolous); Hyslep v. United States, 765 F.2d 1083 , 1084 (11th Cir. 1985) (same).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Darrell G. MOTES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
85-8646.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Mar 31, 1986.
785 F.2d 928
Michael L. Paup, Chief, Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Martha B. Brissette, Appellate Section, Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellee.
Godbold, Hill, Anderson.
Cited by 27 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Motes and numerous other individuals sued for a refund of income taxes under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346. They advanced an arsenal of arguments, including violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution; that their wages are not income subject to tax but are a tax on property such as their labor; that only public servants are subject to tax liability; that withholding of tax from wages is a direct tax on the source of income without apportionment in violation of the Sixteenth Amendment; that withholding taxes violates equal protection; that they should be allowed to exclude from the amount of wages they receive the cost of maintaining their well-being. In a series of cases this court has held that claims such as these are frivolous. U.S. v. Goetz, 746 F.2d 705 (11th Cir.1984); Simanonok v. Commissioner, 731 F.2d 743, 744 (11th Cir.1984); U.S. v. Vance, 730 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir.1984); Melton v. Kurtz, 575 F.2d 547, 548 (5th Cir.1978). The order of the district court was correct.

This court has imposed sanctions against individuals raising claims such as these. Waters v. Commissioner, 764 F.2d 1389 (11th Cir.1985); Hobson v. Fischbeck, 758 F.2d 579 (11th Cir.1985); Ricket v. U.S., 773 F.2d 1214 (11th Cir.1985). Accordingly we award double costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the government. The case is REMANDED to the district court for a determination of reasonable attorney’s fees to the government for the cost of defending this appeal.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.