UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1074
MICHAEL CRAIG WORSHAM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Tax Court.
(Tax Ct. No. 031151-09)
Submitted: June 13, 2013 Decided: June 27, 2013
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael C. Worsham, Forest Hill, Maryland, for Appellant.
Kathryn Keneally, Assistant Attorney General, Robert W. Metzler,
Steven K. Uejio, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
After a trial, the tax court found that Michael Worsham
failed to report taxable income of $193,026 for 2006 and that he
was liable for increased penalties because his failure to file
was fraudulent. We affirm.
Worsham does not dispute that he failed to pay taxes on the
income he earned in 2006, or the Commissioner’s calculations as
to the amount of the deficiency. However, he argues that
Congress lacks authority to tax his income. This argument
clearly fails. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1 (“The
Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises . . . .”); U.S. Const. amend. XVI (“The
Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,
from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the
several States, and without regard to any census or
enumeration.”). We find similarly unpersuasive Worsham’s
argument that the federal income tax infringes his fundamental
rights.
Worsham also argues that his earnings as an attorney are
not taxable income because they include the “basis value” of his
labor. We agree with the numerous other courts to have
addressed this argument that it is meritless. See, e.g., Boggs
v. Comm’r, 569 F.3d 235, 238 (6th Cir. 2009); Olson v. United
States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985).
2
Finally, Worsham contends that the tax court erred in
imposing a penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6651(f) for fraudulent
failure to file a tax return. “A finding of fraud requires that
the Commissioner prove affirmatively by clear and convincing
evidence actual and intentional wrongdoing on the part of the
[taxpayer] with a specific intent to evade the tax.” Grossman
v. Comm’r, 182 F.3d 275, 277 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation
marks omitted). However, “[i]ntent to defraud . . . may be
proven by circumstantial evidence.” Id. We review the tax
court’s finding of fraud for clear error. Romm v. Comm’r, 245
F.2d 730, 734 (4th Cir. 1957).
Worsham does not dispute that he failed to file a return.
The tax court found several indicia of fraud present, including:
1) Worsham had filed tax returns in years preceding 2006,
demonstrating his awareness of the filing requirement; 2)
Worsham’s tax liability increased in 2006 because his law
practice became more profitable; 3) Worsham raised numerous
frivolous arguments; and 4) Worsham is highly educated and has a
law degree and thus should have been able to identify frivolous
arguments. Worsham v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo 2012-219, at 17-21
(2012). The court found it particularly significant that
Worsham previously moved to dismiss his case after learning that
the Commissioner had subpoenaed his bank accounts; the court
concluded that Worsham was more concerned with concealing the
3
true amount of his income than with presenting good-faith
arguments regarding his tax liability. Given these
considerations, we cannot conclude that the tax court’s finding
of fraud was clearly erroneous.
In addition to the 26 U.S.C. § 6651(f) penalty, the tax
court imposed penalties under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6651(a)(2) and 6654
for failure to pay the tax shown on a substitute for return and
failure to pay estimated taxes. Worsham does not challenge
those penalties beyond arguing that he never owed any income tax
to begin with. We have rejected that argument and thus need not
consider the issue further. *
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the tax court. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
The Commissioner has filed a motion seeking sanctions
against Worsham, acting pro se, for noting a frivolous appeal.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1912; Fed. R. App. P. 38. We deny that motion.
4