Tax Court warns against arguing wages aren't taxable

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In rejecting a man’s argument that his employment wages shouldn’t be subject to Indiana’s adjusted gross income tax, the Indiana Tax Court warned that those who present a similar argument in the future may be subject to paying the attorney fees of the other party.

Lyle Lacey, a verification engineer at Adecco, attached a federal Form 4852 to his state and federal income tax returns indicating his wages were zero. He didn’t attach his W-2 form. Lacey actually was paid quite a bit from the company for the 2007 tax year, although the amount was not specified. Lacey also claimed a refund in state and county income taxes.

The Indiana Department of State Revenue determined that Lacey actually owed more than $1,000 in state income tax and denied his protest.

On appeal in Lyle Lacey v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, No. 49T10-0906-TA-25, Lacey argued his income from Adecco for the 2007 tax year isn’t income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment of the United States Constitution or the Internal Revenue Code. He also argued that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the 16th Amendment’s provision “exempting a tax from apportionment [is in] irreconcilable conflict with the general [constitutional] requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned.”

Senior Tax Judge Thomas Fisher rejected his arguments, finding them to be without merit. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the argument that income is limited to gain or profit, as Lacey argued. Also, congressional power to tax is articulated in Article 1, Section 8, and "'embraces every conceivable power of taxation’ including the power to lay and collect income taxes,” wrote the judge.

Lacey’s employment compensation is income subject to Indiana’s adjusted gross income tax. Judge Fisher also pointed out this is the third time the Tax Court has rejected the argument that one’s employment wages don’t constitute income subject to Indiana’s adjusted gross income tax.

“Consequently, the Court now provides the following warning: in the future, when a taxpayer advances the same (or a substantially similar) argument, the Court will not hesitate to consider whether an award of attorney fees is appropriate,” he wrote.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit