ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT