IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-10068 Conference Calendar

ALLISON MCCOY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DISTRICT DIRECTOR, AUSTIN, TEXAS; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE CHIEF OF COLLECTIONS, AUSTIN, TEXAS; H. GADDAY; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DISTRICT DIRECTOR, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE CHIEF OF COLLECTIONS, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, Defendants -Appellees, ------------------------- ALLISON MCCOY, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DISTRICT DIRECTOR, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE CHIEF OF COLLECTIONS, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DISTRICT DIRECTOR, AUSTIN, TEXAS; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE CHIEF OF COLLECTIONS, AUSTIN, TEXAS; PAM C. BIGELOW, Director, Austin Customer Service Center; NANCY SPOTSER, Chief Customer Service Division, Austin, Texas, Defendants - Appellees.

------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:00-CV-2786-M & USDC No. 3:00-CV-2787-M -------------------- October 29, 2002 Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. No. 02-10068 -2- Allison McCoy appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). McCoy argues on appeal that her wages are not taxable income and that income tax is unconstitutional because it violates her property rights.

McCoy’s arguments are without merit. McCoy’s tax returns for the relevant tax years reflect that she was employed by the United States Marine Corps and later by two private companies as a technician. Her wages from these employers constitute taxable income. See 26 C.F.R. § 1.61-2(a)(1)(providing that wages of persons in the United States military are income to the recipients unless excluded by law); 26 U.S.C. § 3401(a)(defining wages as all means of remuneration for services provided by an employee to an employer including cash and other mediums); 26 U.S.C. § 61(a)(1)(specifically including compensation for services in the definition of gross income). Similarly, McCoy’s challenge to the constitutionality of income tax has been soundly rejected by this court. See Stelly v. Comm’r, 761 F.2d 1113, 1115 (5th Cir. 1985).

McCoy’s appeal is without arguable merit and therefore frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, McCoy’s appeal is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

R. 47.5.4.