Opinion
No. 19-2084
03-02-2020
RICHARD E. BOGGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant - Appellee, and DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; C.K. O'NEAL, Defendants.
Richard E. Boggs, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joel Branman, Michael J. Haungs, Supervisory Attorney, Tax Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:18-cv-01915-MGL) Before NIEMEYER, KING, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard E. Boggs, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joel Branman, Michael J. Haungs, Supervisory Attorney, Tax Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Richard E. Boggs appeals from the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Boggs sought damages for improperly withheld taxes, specifically from "compensation for services," under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (2018). Boggs contends that "compensation for services" is not "gross income." However, contrary to Boggs' assertions, "compensation for services" is wages and, thus, taxable income. See e.g., United States v. Sullivan, 788 F.2d 813, 815 (1st Cir. 1986) (noting that "[c]ourts uniformly have rejected as frivolous the arguments that money received in compensation for labor is not taxable income"); see also 26 U.S.C. § 61(a)(1) (2018) (including "[c]ompensation for services" in definition of "gross income"). Accordingly, the actions of the IRS employees did not violate the law, and Boggs has, thus, failed to state a claim under § 7433. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED