Quatloos! > Tax
Scams > Tax
Protestors > EXHIBIT:
Tax Protestor Dummies 2 > Cases
("Damn, We Lost Again!
And why is it
that people who sell
tax protestor materials file their tax returns anyway . . .")
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
(D.C. No. CIV-98-1469-LH/LFG)
ORDER AND JUDGMENT /*/
Before Seymour, Chief Judge, Ebel and Briscoe, Circuit Judges.
 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would
not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See
Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case
is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
 Plaintiff Dorothy J. Wade appeals the district court's
decision dismissing her action to quash summonses served
on banks by the Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.). We affirm.
 The I.R.S. served two summonses on banks where Wade
had accounts. Wade filed a "Civil Action," alleging
that the I.R.S. could not audit her bank records because
she is a natural born free sovereign of the republic of
Mexico, by birth, and an inhabitant of New Mexico republic (or
commonwealth) of the United States of America, and . . . she
does not reside in, or claim to have citizenship in, the United
States or a possession of the [U]nited States . . . [and] she
does not reside or work in the U.S. enclave within any 50 states
of the union.
ROA at tab 1. The district court found it did not have jurisdiction
to quash the summons because Wade failed to comply with the notice
requirements of 26 U.S.C. section 7609(b)(2)(B).
 We review de novo the district court's dismissal for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. U.S. West, Inc. v. Tristani,
182 F.3d 1202, 1206 (10th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S.
Ct. 845 (2000). Wade raises two claims on appeal: (1) that "under
the United States Constitution, under the Fourth Amendment,
the law requires Due Process before her privacy can be invaded" and
(2) that the district court erred in "dismissing [Wade's]
complaint without investigating all of the relevant circumstances
surrounding the allegations." Wade does not address
the jurisdiction issue.
 In a proceeding to quash an I.R.S. summons, notice must
be given "to the person summoned" within 20 days
of the individual's notice of the summons. 26 U.S.C. section
7609(b)(2)(B). Wade does not dispute that she failed to mail
a copy of her petition to the bank as required by section
7609(b)(2)(B). Failure to comply with section 7609(b)(2)(B)
is a jurisdictional defect. 26 C.F.R. section 301.7609- 3(b)(2)(iii)
(stating that "[f]ailure to give timely notice to 
the summoned party . . . means that the notified person has
failed to institute a proceeding to quash and the district
court has no jurisdiction to hear the proceeding").
The district court did not err in dismissing Wade's complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
 The government has filed a motion for sanctions, arguing
Wade's appeal is frivolous. Fed. R. App. P. 38 allows this
court to award damages and costs to the appellee if the court "determines
that an appeal is frivolous." We have noted that
the following arguments . . . are completely lacking in
merit and patently frivolous: (1) individuals ("free born,
white, preamble, sovereign, natural, individual common law 'de
jure' citizens of a state, etc.") are not "persons" subject
taxation under the Internal Revenue code; (2) the authority of
the United States is confined to the District of Columbia; . . .
(4) the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution is either
invalid or applies only to corporations; . . . (6) the income
tax is voluntary; [and] (7) no statutory authority exists for
imposing an income tax on individuals.
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir.
conclude that Wade's appeal is frivolous and grant the government's
motion for sanctions in the amount of $1,000. See United States v.
Gosnell, 961 F.2d 1518, 1521 (10th Cir. 1992) (imposing sanctions for
frivolous taxpayer appeal), Casper v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, 805 F.2d 902, 906 (10th Cir. 1986) (same).
 We GRANT the government's motion for sanctions in the
amount of $1,000 and AFFIRM the decision of the district
court. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
/*/ This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except
under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation
of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment
may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir.
END OF FOOTNOTE
Return to Tax Protestor Exhibit