Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
________________________________________
)
WILLIAM M. GREENE and )
KAREN M. GREENE, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Case No. 1:08-cv-0280-LEK-DRH
v. )
)
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, )
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________________ )
The United States hereby submits its reply to plaintiffs’ response to the government’s
motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs assert in their response to the United States’ motion to dismiss that they are not
taxpayers subject to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and therefore this action should
not be dismissed pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act. (See Docket Entry No. 19, at 20-
30.) They also conclude that their right to earn income cannot be taxed as a privilege. (Id. at 26-
28). Plaintiffs, however, admit that they “were born and lived most of their lives in the State of
New York . . . and are currently employed as truck drivers involved in interstate commerce.” (Id.
at 26.)
For federal income tax purposes, "gross income" means all income from whatever source
derived and includes compensation for services. 26 U.S.C. § 61. Any income, from whatever
source, is presumed to be income under § 61, unless the taxpayer can prove that it is specifically
exempt or excluded. See Reese v. United States, 24 F.3d 228, 230 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Plaintiffs
have not provided any proof that their compensation as truck drivers is exempt or excluded. All
compensation for personal services, no matter what the form of payment, must be included in
gross taxable income. This includes salary or wages paid in cash, as well as the value of property
and other economic benefits received because of services performed, or to be performed in the
future. See Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U.S. 77, 82 (1977); Commissioner v. Glenshaw
Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955) (income not limited to gains or profits); Connor v. Comm’r,
770 F.2d. 17, 20 (2d Cir. 1985) (“Wages are income.”); Ficalora v. Comm’r, 751 F.2d 85, 88 (2d
Cir. 1984) (same). Therefore, plaintiffs’ claims that their personal labor is not taxable and that
Plaintiffs also assert that the government has admitted that the Internal Revenue Service
(“IRS”) is not an agency of the United States. (See Docket Entry No. 19, at 30-33.) The
Finally, plaintiffs erroneously contend that the IRS is not authorized to operate within the
fifty states. (See Docket Entry No. 19, at 30-33.) The IRS’ right to assess and collect federal
income taxes is undisputed in law. “Under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution,
there can be no question that Congress has the power to tax citizens of ‘the 50 states.’ The
Sixteenth Amendment extended that power further to income taxes. Thus, the federal
government exercises ‘sovereignty,’ albeit dual sovereignty over the fifty states with respect to
taxes.” United States v. Webb, No. 06-CV-5317(SLT)(RER), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93491, at
*14 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2007) (internal citations, quotations and footnote omitted).
-2-
Otherwise, the government relies on its Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to
Dismiss.
Respectfully submitted,
GLENN T. SUDDABY
United States Attorney
-3-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I CERTIFY that on July 2, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing United States’ Reply
to Plaintiffs’ Response to the United States’ Motion to Dismiss and the copy of the following
case cited in the United States’ Reply – United States v. Webb, No. 06-CV-5317 (SLT)(RER),
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93491 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2007) – using the CM/ECF system. Notice of
this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties registered to receive electronic notification. I have
mailed by First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, the foregoing document to the
William M. Greene
P.O. Box 279
Voorheesville, NY 12186
Karen M. Greene
P.O. Box 279
Voorheesville, NY 12186
Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.