ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

1: STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1346 (a)(1) the District Court has jurisdiction over civil actions for the recovery of 'any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected . . .' The judgment appealed from is a final order. This Court has jurisdiction to review the District Court's decision pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. The District Court entered its final judgment on 7/14/00. A Notice of Appeal was filed on 7/18/00 in compliance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2: STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

The issue before this Court is whether the District Court's judgment is supported by substantial evidence, federal statute, legal precedent, and is free from legal and procedural error. To promote clarity, Plaintiff-Appellant ___________ is henceforth referred to as '_<<LASTNAME>>_', and Defendants-Appellees Internal Revenue Service et al. are referred to as 'IRS'.

3: STATEMENT OF THE CASE

a) Factual Background

Based on explicit statements made in various IRS publications and a US Supreme Court ruling that the federal income tax system is based on voluntary compliance, <<LASTNAME>> wrote to the IRS in 1996 explaining that he had chosen not to comply and would not be paying allegedly overdue income taxes for 1987, 1988, and 1989.

The IRS responded by issuing a federal tax lien against him, which it subsequently satisfied by withholding $14,609.97 under protest from the sale of <<LASTNAME>>'s home. <<LASTNAME>> seeks to recover that sum plus interest and costs. He also seeks a permanent injunction against the IRS.

b) Procedural Background

<<LASTNAME>> filed an appeal of federal tax lien on 8/9/96 and on 9/3/97. Both appeals were ignored. Finally, the IRS notified him on 4/1/98 that his appeals had been disallowed.

<<LASTNAME>> then wrote to the IRS on 2/15/99, 4/7/99, and 6/16/99 requesting a due process hearing. The IRS denied his requests on the grounds that the lien had been satisfied by withholding $14,609.97 from the sale of his home.

<<LASTNAME>> then claimed a refund of the withheld money from the IRS pursuant to U.S.C. 7422 (a). This claim was ignored.

Having exhausted the administrative remedies available to him, <<LASTNAME>> filed suit against the IRS in District Court on 2/28/00 for refund of the withheld money. The case was dismissed with prejudice on 7/13/00.

4: SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The question before the Court is: 'Does an individual have any legal obligation to perform a voluntary action?' <<LASTNAME>> argues that an individual has no legal obligation whatsoever to perform a voluntary action, hence the IRS had no legal cause to issue the above-mentioned federal tax lien against him and withhold $14,609.97 from the sale of his home.

<<LASTNAME>> also argues that the District Court erred by making a false statement and basing its ruling upon the false statement, by ignoring legal precedent set by the US Supreme Court, by ignoring published statements made by the IRS, by ignoring published testimony by a senior (IRS) official, by ignoring federal statutes, and by violating <<LASTNAME>>'s due process rights to a fair trial.

5: THE ARGUMENT

a) The District Court Erred By Basing Its Ruling On A False Statement.

The District Court's ruling is largely based on the statement: '<<LASTNAME>> contends that the income tax system is based on voluntary compliance.' This statement is false. <<LASTNAME>> does not contend, either in his complaint or in any of his motions, that the income tax system is based on voluntary compliance.

In making this statement, the District Court fails to distinguish between evidence and contention. In his complaint, <<LASTNAME>> simply presents the following published statements, verbatim and without contention, as prima facie evidence provided by the US Government that the income tax system is based on voluntary compliance:

i) 'The purpose of publishing revenue rulings and revenue procedures in the Internal Revenue Bulletin is to promote correct and uniform application of the tax laws by Internal Revenue Service employees and to assist taxpayers in attaining maximum voluntary compliance.' 26 C.F.R. 601.601

ii) 'The tax system is based on voluntary compliance . . .' 26 C.F.R. 601.602

iii) 'The mission of the Service is to encourage and achieve the highest possible degree of voluntary compliance with the tax laws and regulations and to maintain the highest degree of public confidence in the integrity and efficiency of the Service.' Federal Register, Volume 39, 62 (11572), March 29, 1974

iv) 'Taxpayers in the United States assess their tax liabilities against themselves and pay them voluntarily. This system of assessment and payment is based on the principle of voluntary compliance.' Internal Revenue Manual, Sec. 20:123 (7/15/96)

v) 'Of course, the Government can collect the tax from a District Court suitor by exercising its power of distraint if he does not split his action, but we cannot believe that compelling resort to this extraordinary measure is either wise or in accord with congressional intent. Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint.' Flora v. United States, 362 US 179, 80 S.Ct. 630 (1960)

vi) 'Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now the situation is as different as day and night. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply.' Testimony of Dwight E. Avis, Head of the Bureau of Internal Revenue Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, given before the House Ways and Means Committee on Restructuring the IRS (83rd Congress, 1953)

<<LASTNAME>> asserts that the IRS is the taxing authority of the United States and must be given the presumption of correctness when it states in the Internal Revenue Manual (supra): 'Taxpayers in the United States assess their tax liabilities against themselves and pay them voluntarily.'

Similarly, since the US Supreme Court is the judicial authority of the United States, it too must be given the presumption of correctness when it states in Flora (supra): 'Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint.'

The authoritative statements cited above speak for themselves. It is the U.S. Government ~ not <<LASTNAME>> ~ that contends that the income tax system is based on voluntary compliance. It should also be noted that there are no exceptions to voluntary compliance. Hence the District Court erred by stating: '<<LASTNAME>> contends that the income tax system is based on voluntary compliance.'

b) The District Court Erred By Relying On Seriously Flawed Legal Precedent

The District Court also stated:

'<<LASTNAME>>'s primary contention, that the federal income tax system is based on voluntary compliance, has been held to be completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous. Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990) and Wilcox v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1998).'

The ruling: 'that the federal income tax system is based on voluntary compliance, has been held to be completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous.' contradicts the federal statutes and the authoritative statements made by the IRS and the US Supreme Court cited above, and is therefore erroneous. Hence the District Court compounded the judicial error by relying on these seriously flawed cases for legal precedent.

c) The IRS Erred By Withholding Money In The Absence Of Legal Obligation.

<<LASTNAME>> contends that an individual has no legal obligation to perform a voluntary action, and hence has no legal obligation to pay federal income tax. This contention is ignored in the District Court's ruling and by the IRS in its response to his complaint. Nevertheless, the correct meaning of theword 'voluntary' forms the crux of his complaint and must be resolved in order that justice may prevail.

The major dictionaries currently in use throughout America include the following statements in their definitions of 'voluntary'. <<LASTNAME>> alleges that neither the Code of Federal Regulations, nor the IRS, nor the US Supreme Court have provided a precise legal definition of the word 'voluntary', hence the following statements should be accepted as authoritative:

Although for legal purposes the word 'voluntary' is considered to be so simple and in such general use that it need not be defined, it has been variously defined as meaning acting by choice, without compulsion; the doing of something which a person is free to do or not to do, as he so decides. . . . without any present legal obligation to do the thing done.' Corpus Juris Secundum (92: 1029, 1030, 1031)

'Acting or done without any present legal obligation to do the thing done, or any such obligation that can accrue from the current state of affairs. Voluntary implies freedom from any compulsion that could constrain one's choice.' Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1993)

'Done or made without compulsion or legal obligation.' Chambers English Dictionary (1988)

'Without legal obligation or consideration.' American Heritage Dictionary (1992)

These sources concur by definitively stating that there is no legal obligation to perform a voluntary action. This concept is supported by case law. In Touli v. Santa Cruz County Title Co., 67 P.2d 404, 406, 20 Cal. App. 2d 495, the court ruled that a voluntary action is one that is done without any legal obligation to do the thing done.

Similarly, in Tietjen v. Heberlein, 171 P. 928, 54 Mont. 486; Akio Kuwahara v. Acheson, D.C. Cal., 96 F. Supp. 38, 42; Brown v. State, 135 S.E. 765, 766, 36 Ga. App. 84; Coker v. State, 33 S.E. 2d 171, 174, 199 Ga. 20; Perryman v. State, 12 S.E. 2d 288, 391, 63 Ga. App. 819 the courts ruled that a voluntary action is one that is done without compulsion.

As discussed above, the federal statutes, the IRS, and the US Supreme Court state that the income tax system is based on voluntary compliance, without any exceptions. Hence <<LASTNAME>> contends that he did not have any legal obligation to pay income taxes for 1987, 1988, and 1989.

Since he did not have any legal obligation to pay income taxes for those years, the IRS had no legal cause of action against him and erred by withholding allegedly unpaid taxes from the sale of his home.

d) The District Court Erred By Ruling That It Has No Jurisdiction Over This Action.

This case is not a judicial review of an IRS determination, but an action to recover taxes that were erroneously collected. Hence the District Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1346 (a)(1).

e) The District Court Erred By Ruling That This Action Fails To State A Claim On Which Relief May Be Based.

<<LASTNAME>> has provided conclusive evidence in the form of the US Government's own authoritative statements that the income tax system is based on voluntary compliance, without any exceptions.

He has shown that the IRS and the US Supreme court concur in explicitly stating that the payment of income tax is voluntary.

<<LASTNAME>> has also proven through case law and the definitive use of the English language that an individual has no legal obligation to perform a voluntary action, and that the IRS therefore had no legal cause to issue a federal tax lien against him.

Hence it follows that the IRS erroneously collected the sum of $14,609.97 from the sale of his home, and that <<LASTNAME>> is entitled to claim a refund.

f) The District Court Erred By Depriving <<LASTNAME>> Of His Due Process Rights.

The pre-trial filing deadline in this case was 7/27/00. However, the District Court issued its ruling on 7/13/00 without giving <<LASTNAME>> prior notice, thereby depriving him of his due process right to file his Motion in Opposition to the IRS's Motion for Dismissal.

Furthermore, the District Court issued its ruling without granting <<LASTNAME>> a hearing, depriving him of his due process right to a fair trial.

6: CONCLUSION

The Code of Federal Regulations explicitly states at 26 C.F.R. 601.601 and 601.602 that the income tax system is based on voluntary compliance. The IRS explicitly states in the Internal Revenue Manual Sec. 20:123 that the payment of income tax is voluntary. Since the Code of Federal Regulations is the statutory authority of the United States and the IRS is the taxing authority of the United States, these statements should be accepted as true and correct.

Similarly, the US Supreme Court in Flora ruled that the income tax system is based on voluntary compliance. Since the US Supreme Court is the judicial authority of the United States, this ruling should be accepted as true and correct.

<<LASTNAME>> alleges that there are no federal statutes that mandate taxation of domestic income earned by American citizens and resident aliens, which is presumably why the income tax system is based on voluntary compliance. If this allegation is incorrect, he challenges the IRS to produce the federal statutes in its reply to his brief.

Resolution of this matter hinges on the fact that an individual has no legal obligation to perform a voluntary action. Since the income tax system is based on voluntary compliance, <<LASTNAME>> had no legal obligation to pay income taxes for 200X, 200X, and 200X. Hence the IRS had no legal cause of action and erroneously withheld $__________ from the sale of his home.

Regarding <<LASTNAME>>'s request for an injunction against the IRS, the US Supreme Court has made an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act if it is clear that the US Government cannot prevail under any circumstances. Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1,7 (1962).

As noted above, the Code of Federal Regulations, the IRS, and the US Supreme Court all state that the income tax system is based on voluntary compliance, without any exceptions. Hence the IRS has no legal cause of action against <<LASTNAME>> and can never prevail against him. His request for an injunction is in accord with the US Supreme Court ruling in Enochs and should be granted.

For the foregoing reasons, the District Court's decision to dismiss the case is not supported by the evidence, nor by federal statute, nor by sound legal precedent, nor is it free from legal or procedural error.

7: REQUEST FOR RELIEF

<<LASTNAME>> prays that this Court will reverse the decision of the District Court and will grant him judgment against the IRS as follows:

a) That the Court will order the IRS to refund to <<LASTNAME>> the sum of $_____________ plus interest.

b) That the Court will order the IRS to pay <<LASTNAME>> the sum of $11,150 in administrative and litigation costs arising from the prosecution of this lawsuit.

c) That the Court will issue a permanent injunction forbidding the IRS from contacting <<LASTNAME>> against his wishes and from directly or indirectly interfering in any other aspect of his life.

Dated ____________

___________________________

<<NAME>>.

Appellant in propria persona