Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Kenneth White v. James P. Boyle, 538 F.2d 1077, 4th Cir. (1976)
Kenneth White v. James P. Boyle, 538 F.2d 1077, 4th Cir. (1976)
2d 1077
76-2 USTC P 9597
On the basis of these affidavits, the district court found that the actions of the
defendants were made pursuant to federal law, were within the scope of their
authority, and were reasonable, good faith actions taken in response to White's
defective 1972 return. As a result, the district judge determined that the
defendants enjoyed official immunity, and, accordingly, granted summary
judgment in their favor. In addition, that portion of the complaint seeking
injunctive relief was dismissed because the court was without power to
entertain the suit. See White v. Boyle, 390 F.Supp. 514 (W.D.Va.1975).
5
When
a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this
rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his
pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must
set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not
so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.
6
Rule 56(e), Fed.R.Civ.P. " '(T)o resist a motion for summary judgment, the
party against whom it is sought must present some evidence to indicate that the
facts are in dispute . . . . His bare contention that the issue is disputable will not
suffice.' " Berry v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 273 F.2d 572, 582 (4th Cir.
1960), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 976, 80 S.Ct. 1060, 4 L.Ed.2d 1011 (1960),
(quoting Zoby v. American Fidelity Co., 242 F.2d 76, 80 (4th Cir. 1957)).
White failed to carry the burden of showing that there is present here any
genuine issue of material fact. There is no evidence of the existence of any fact
which, when viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, will support the
contention that the defendants invaded any right of the plaintiff secured by the
Constitution.
8
Similarly, White's affidavits do not reveal any "right" which the agents in this
case violated. He failed to show how the initiation of the investigation was
unwarranted in view of the nature of his 1972 tax return, which contained no
information from which tax liability could be computed, or that the
investigation was conducted so as to violate any of his rights. His allegations
that he was not treated as the normal "Fifth Amendment Tax Protestor," even if
assumed to be accurate,2 do not demonstrate any violation of rights only that the
investigation was conducted under different procedures and his claim that his
Fourth Amendment rights were violated by a search of his house and his car
rest entirely upon conjecture3 and are without sufficient factual support to
withstand the agents' specific denial that any search whatsoever was conducted.
10
11
taken in response to plaintiff's 1972 tax return. . . . " Under these findings,
which are uncontradicted except for White's conclusory allegations, defendants
are clearly protected from civil liability by qualified, good-faith immunity.
Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 95 S.Ct. 992, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975). See
also Economou v. Dept. of Agriculture, 535 F.2d 688, 44 U.S.L.W. 2516 (2d
Cir. 1976).
12
13
14
Affirmed.
Attached to White's 1972 income tax form was a seven-page statement which
set out his belief that the 1040 Form, the Internal Revenue Code, and/or the
Internal Revenue Service were in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,
Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
White's statement began with the following introductory paragraphs:
So that there is no misunderstanding, I am not refusing to pay a lawful income
tax, lawfully determined by regular judgment according to the procedures of
due process of law before a court which is part of the Judicial Branch of the
Government of the United States.
I am filing this Form 1040 U. S. Individual Income Tax Return for the year in
question, with explanation appended, but I do not wish to incriminate myself or
go along with any subversion or overthrow of the Constitution of the United
States.
I do not think it is possible under the law for me to supply the information in
the manner that is requested in Form 1040 for the year in question.
White's allegation that he was treated differently than other "Fifth Amendment
Tax Protestors" is based on an Internal Management Document from the office
of the IRS's Western Region Commissioner, which sets out procedures for
initiating contact with such individuals. We are told, however, by the
government that no such guidelines for the Southeastern Region existed at the
time White's 1972 tax return was filed and were not promulgated until 1974
3
White alleges that the IRS agents conducted a "search" of his home by looking
through its open windows as they walked around the house to knock on a rear
door and that they must have searched his car since subsequent to their visit he
found the car's glove compartment standing open. But there is no proof. Neither
White nor anyone else was at White's home at the time the agents visited it