U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1984

Joseph E. Simanonok v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided May 3, 1984 · Hill, Johnson, Henderson

731 F.2d 743; 53 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1278; 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 22900 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Joel Gerber, Robert B. Miscavich, I.R.S., Michael L. Paup, Chief, Appellate Section, Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Gary R. Allen, William P. Wang, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Tax Div., Washington, D.C., for C.I.R., Appeal from the Decision of the United States Tax Court.

Cases that cite this one

20 later published cases cite this decision.

Lacey v. Indiana Department of State Revenue (Indiana Tax Court 2008)
Holt v. New Mexico Department of Taxation & Revenue (N.M. 2002)
In re David Larry Davis, Debtor. Charles A. Gower, Trustee v. Farmers Home Administration (11th Cir. 1990)
Everett v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1989)
Darrell G. Motes v. United States (11th Cir. 1986)
Don H. Lucas v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (6th Cir. 1986)
John M. Casper v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (10th Cir. 1986)
Beard v. United States (District Court, E.D. Tennessee 1986)
Tickel v. United States (District Court, E.D. Tennessee 1986)
Shenker v. LeBaube (District Court, E.D. Missouri 1986)
Gerald M. Madison v. United States (11th Cir. 1985)
Hobson v. Fischbeck (11th Cir. 1985)
R.L. Goodmon v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (11th Cir. 1985)
Neil C. Hyslep v. United States (11th Cir. 1985)
Jerry W. Counts and Rae A. Counts v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (11th Cir. 1985)
United States v. Gary L. Schaffner (6th Cir. 1985)
Hobson v. Fischbeck (11th Cir. 1985)
Simanonok v. C.I.R (11th Cir. 1984)
Gary Lewis Sparrow v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (4th Cir. 1984)
Michael W. Lovell and Phyllis D. Lovell v. United States (7th Cir. 1984)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Joseph E. Simanonok filed suit in the tax court seeking a redetermination of his tax liability. The tax court, rejecting Simanonok’s contentions that he is not an individual subject to tax, that he is not required to file returns, that he had not received income because his paychecks were received in exchange for his costs and disbursements of labor, and that he is a minister and exempt from indirect taxes (among other claims), entered summary judgment in favor of the Internal Revenue Service. The tax court correctly determined that Simanonok’s contentions are completely without merit; we therefore affirm the tax court’s decision as to these issues. See Circuit Rule 25.

On appeal, Simanonok raises for the first time the contention that the tax court is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s decision in Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipeline Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982). Although Simanonok raises this issue for the first time on appeal, we may consider it because it affects the jurisdiction of the court. Knighten v. Commissioner, 705 F.2d 777, 778 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 249, 78 L.Ed.2d 237 (1983). Nevertheless, we find Simanonok’s argument on this issue also to be without merit. This issue has been presented to this court before and rejected. See Melton v. Kurtz, 575 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1978); Nash Miami Motors, Inc. v. Commissioner, 358 F.2d 636 (5th Cir. 1966). Although these cases were, decided before the Supreme Court’s decision in Northern Pipeline, Northern Pipeline does not affect the validity of their holdings. The jurisdiction of the tax court is not so far-ranging as to violate Article III. See Redhouse v. Commissioner, 728 F.2d 1249 at 1253 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1984).

AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.