Stephen M. Paulson v. United States

Stephen M. PAULSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee

Paulson v. United States, 758 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1985)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided: March 22, 1985
Docket: Nos. 887, Docket 84-6226
Judges: Timbers, Newman, Kearse
Citations: 758 F.2d 6155 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 11381985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29844

Opinion — Per Curiam

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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 20 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Leogrande v. United States811 F.2d 147 (2d Cir. 1987)
In re American President Lines, Inc., Marshall P. Safir779 F.2d 714 (D.C. Cir. 1985)
Marvin D. Miller v. United States of America and Internal Revenue Service868 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1989)
Allen W. Jolly v. United States764 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1985)
Kamerman v. Steinberg891 F.2d 424 (2d Cir. 1989)
Peter Mone v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Ronald D774 F.2d 570 (2d Cir. 1985)

Most recent

In re Paulson170 B.R. 496 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1994)
Kamerman v. Steinberg891 F.2d 424 (2d Cir. 1989)
Marvin D. Miller v. United States of America and Internal Revenue Service868 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1989)
Leogrande v. United States811 F.2d 147 (2d Cir. 1987)
Conrad and Debra Himes v. United States of America and Internal Revenue Service802 F.2d 458 (6th Cir. 1986)
Harold N. Sisemore, and Jacqueline E. Sisemore v. United States of America and Internal Revenue Service797 F.2d 268 (6th Cir. 1986)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 382 U.S. 70 (1966)	258
	Schiff v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 751 F.2d 116 (2d Cir. 1984)	26
	United States v. Schiff, 612 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1979)	25

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list