United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
S. Lasnik United States District Judge.
matter comes before the Court on defendant William P.
Schmidt's “Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and
Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction.”
Dkt. #33. For the reasons set forth below, defendant's
motion is DENIED.
27, 2016, the United States filed a complaint against
defendants William P. Schmidt, Sufian Hamad, Riverton
Holding, LLC, and King County pursuant to 26 U.S.C.
§§ 7401 and 7403. Dkt. #1 ¶5-8. The action
seeks to reduce to judgment the outstanding federal income
tax assessment against defendant William P. Schmidt, find
that the parcel of real property located in King County (the
“Subject Property”) is held by Schmidt, foreclose
federal tax liens on the Subject Property, and sell the
Subject Property and distribute the proceeds in accordance
with the Court's findings as to the validity and priority
of the liens and claims of all parties. Dkt. #1 ¶1.
December 15, 2016, Schmidt filed an answer to the complaint.
Dkt. #27. In his answer, Schmidt admits that he purchased the
subject property located in King County in 1995, that he
quit-claimed the property to defendant Sufian Hamad in 2011
for no consideration, and that he retains beneficial title to
the subject property. Dkt. # 27, ¶9-11.
22, 2017, Schmidt filed a “Notice for Lack of
Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of
Jurisdiction.” Dkt. #33. Defendant requests that the
court dismiss the matter for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). Dkt #33, at 30. Schmidt argues that
the court lacks “in personam” jurisdiction over
him. Dkt #33, at 2. Additionally, Schmidt argues (1) that he
is not a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution, but rather a Washington State
citizen and (2) that the Internal Revenue Code is unlawful
because there is no “enabling clause” for the
Sixteenth Amendment. See Dkt. #33.
Schmidt's Arguments Relating to the Fourteenth and
argues that he is “not a ‘Citizen of the United
States' under the so-called 14th Amendment, i.e. a
juristic person or a franchised person who can be compelled
to perform under the regulatory Internal Revenue Code.”
Dkt. #33 at 8. He argues that the Fourteenth Amendment is
null and void because it was “ratified at the point of
a bayonet” and “an examination of the
ratification by the several States shows that various
improper proceedings occurred.” Dkt. #33 at 14.
Further, he argues that the Fourteenth Amendment only applies
to the “territorial jurisdiction of the District of
Columbia, the Federal Territories and Possessions, and the
land which has been ceded by the legislatures of the 50
states to the foreign nation-state of the ‘United
States.'” Dkt. #33 at 23. Schmidt therefore
concludes that he is a citizen of the “Washington
Republic” and is not subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States. Dkt. #33 at 29. With regard to the Sixteenth
Amendment, Schmidt argues that the Amendment lacks “an
enabling clause authorizing any enforcement authority under
such amendment.” Id. at 45. Further, he states
that Section 7401 and 7403 of the Internal Revenue Code have
“no implementing Regulations . . . so as to confer
jurisdiction for any issue for collection of taxes or of any
fine, penalty, or forfeiture.” Id. at 62.
government argues that Schmidt's arguments are identical
to other “tax protestor” arguments that have been
rejected by the Ninth Circuit and others, and as such are
frivolous. Therefore, the government argues that to the
extent that Schmidt's “Notice of Lack of
Jurisdiction” is treated as a motion to dismiss, it
should be denied. Dkt #35 at 5. The Court agrees with the
government, and finds that Schmidt's arguments are not
legitimate legal arguments but rather frivolous and
nonsensical recitations of previously rejected arguments
brought by other litigants hoping to avoid tax liability.
been established that all of defendant's theories are
frivolous. United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934,
937 (9th Cir. 1986). An individual is a “person”
under the Internal Revenue Code and thus is subject to that
code. United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016
(9th Cir. 1980). Also, defendant's arguments regarding
the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution defy longstanding
For over 75 years, the Supreme Court and the lower federal
courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized the
Sixteenth Amendment's authorization of a non-apportioned
direct income tax on United States Citizens residing in the
United States and thus the validity of federal income tax
laws as applied to such citizens.
In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547, 548 (9th Cir. 1989).
Defendant makes no novel arguments that depart from past
attempts by litigants to avoid their tax
obligations. These contentions have been routinely
rejected by the courts and are ...