TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Edward J. Axmann and Donna J. Axmann v. Michael Ponte

Edward J. AXMANN and Donna J. Axmann, Appellants, v. Michael PONTE, Appellee

Axmann v. Ponte, 892 F.2d 761 (8th Cir. 1990)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 9, 1990
Docket
No. 89-2030
Judges
Gibson, John, Magill, McMILLIAN, Per Curiam
Citations
892 F.2d 76165 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5121990 WL 8481990 U.S. App. LEXIS 190

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Edward and Donna Axmann appeal pro se from the orders of the District Court 1

for the District of Nebraska granting ap-pellee IRS agent Michael Ponte’s motion to dismiss their wrongful levy action for failure to state a claim, and denying their motion to modify or vacate judgment. We affirm.

The Axmanns filed in state court the instant action, alleging that a certain assessment levied against them by Ponte for past due federal income tax liabilities was unlawful. Ponte filed a petition for removal in federal district court, a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and a request for sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.

After determining that removal was appropriate, the district court granted Ponte’s motion to dismiss and his request for sanctions on the grounds that (1) the IRS is authorized to carry out broad responsibilities of the Secretary of Treasury for the administration of internal revenue laws; (2) the sixteenth amendment was properly ratified; (3) Ponte is immune from liability for the acts claimed in the petition; (4) the Axmanns failed to present any evidence in support of their arguments; and (5) the lawsuit was “plainly legally frivolous,” and had “no basis in fact or in law and occasioned] nothing except harassment.” The district court denied the Axmanns' motion to modify or vacate judgment. In this timely appeal, the Axmanns reassert the arguments advanced below; Ponte requests double costs and damages pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 38.

Upon careful review, we hold that the district court’s dismissal was proper, and that the Axmanns’ appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, the district court judgment is affirmed, see 8th Cir.R. 14, and Ponte’s request for double costs and damages under Rule 38 is granted.

1

. The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Richard, 892 F.2d 761 (9th Cir. 1989) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list