WILLIAM C. O'KELLEY, Senior United States District Judge
This case is presently before the court for consideration of plaintiffs' "notice of garnishment filed against the above name [sic] plaintiff, in request for hearing" [21-1] and "verified affidavit of citizenship and domicile[;] demand for proof of jurisdiction[;] points and authorities supporting claimants is [sic] non-resident in relationship to United States tax laws" [22-1]. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a hearing and held such on March 27, 2001.
Plaintiffs originally instituted this action on June 21, 1999, seeking refunds of federal income taxes they claimed to have overpaid for calendar years 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998. They maintained that pursuant to § 871(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code, only income connected to a trade or business is taxable. Further, they argued that only holding a public office constitutes a trade or business under § 7701(a)(26). Since they were not public officials, they argued that their wages were not taxable and that they were entitled to a refund for wages withheld during the years in question. Additionally, they argued that under the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution their wages were not income. The court dismissed the claims under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and Rule 12(b)(1) as completely meritless and frivolous. Additionally, the court sanctioned plaintiffs $500 under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs appealed.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this court's decision as to the 1995, 1996, and 1997 tax years, vacated the decision as to the 1998 tax year, and remanded with directions to dismiss the 1998 tax year claim for lack of jurisdiction because plaintiffs' complaint did not allege they paid the full amount of their tax liability for that year. [18-1]. The Eleventh Circuit's mandate was made the order of this court on November 16, 2000. [19-1]
In order to recover the $500 sanction, the United States obtained a writ of continuing garnishment against the property of plaintiff Garnell McAfee, Jr. and served it along with other appropriate paperwork on plaintiff and his employer, General Motors Corporation. At the March 27, 2001 hearing, plaintiff asserted that his wages have been garnished and that a check has been tendered to the United States by General Motors. The Assistant United States Attorney represented that she had recently received notice of receipt of the check.
In plaintiffs' motion for a hearing, objections to garnishment, and verified affidavit [21-1 22-1], plaintiffs essentially repeat their claims and arguments from their original complaint. As this court concluded previously, these claims are completely meritless and without foundation in law. The court is of the opinion that plaintiffs' "objections to garnishment" merely rehash their original claims. However, even if they could somehow be construed as objections under 28 U.S.C. § 3202 or 28 U.S.C. § 3205, the facts of this case do not warrant relief under these statutes.
Plaintiffs' conduct in bringing this ill-considered, nonsensical litigation before this court for yet a second time is nothing but contumacious foolishness which wastes the time and energy of the court system, the United States, and the plaintiffs. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals long ago put litigants on notice that they should expect to have sanctions imposed against them for raising these sorts of frivolous contentions. See Hyslep v. United States, 765 F.2d 1083, 1084-85 (11th Cir. 1985) ("The argument that individual wage earners are not subject to income tax is completely frivolous and without merit." "[T]hose who would litigate in this circuit are put on notice that they may be expected to have sanctions imposed against them if they continue to raise these sorts of frivolous contentions."); see also 26 U.S.C. § 6673 (permitting the Tax Court to impose sanctions for instituting frivolous law suits)
In view of the fact that the previously imposed sanction was an ineffective deterrent, the court hereby doubles that sanction and finds it appropriate to sanction plaintiffs under Rule 11 in the amount of $1,000.00. See FED.R.CIV.P. 11; see also Lake v. Department of the Treasury, 905 F. Supp. 1061 (N.D.Ga. 1995) (O'Kelley, J.) (imposing Rule 11 sanctions in the amount of $7,000 for frivolous tax claim). Because sanctions have been raised sua sponte, they will not benefit the defendant, but rather shall go to the general treasury. See Lake, 905 F. Supp. at 1062. If plaintiff fails to pay the sanctions due, the United States Attorney will be authorized to commence collection proceedings yet again.
Additionally, the United States requests that a 10% surcharge on the $500 debt it has sought to recover be assessed against the plaintiffs,see 28 U.S.C. § 3011, or in the alternative for attorney's fees associated with the enforcement of this claim as allowed by law. See Def.'s Mem. Law Support Garnishment, p. 12 [30-1]. It also seeks additional costs including the marshal's costs for serving the writ, see Process Receipt and Return [25-1, 25-2]. The court hereby GRANTS the United States' request and assesses plaintiffs $50 for the 10% surcharge and $291.59 for the marshal's costs incurred in serving the writ of garnishment on plaintiff Garnell McAfee, Jr. and his employer.
Conclusion
1. Plaintiffs are
SANCTIONED in the amount of $1,000.00, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. The United States' request for a 10% surcharge and service costs,
see Def.'s Mem. Law Support Garnishment, p. 12 [30-1], is
GRANTED. Plaintiffs are
ASSESSED $50 for the 10% surcharge and $291.59 for the marshal's costs incurred in serving the writ of garnishment.
3. Plaintiffs are
ORDERED to pay the total amount of $1,341.59 within 30 days of the date of this order.