[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 11 58 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. 1 45 06 -1 0

DAVID ROY CALLIHAN, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us COMM ISSI ONER OF IRS, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he

U.S. Tax Co urt

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 25 , 20 12 ) Befo re MAR CUS, MARTIN an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Dav idRo y

Cal li ha n, p ro ceed in g p ro se, app eal s t he Tax C ou rt’s d eci si on to Case: 12-11586 Date Filed: 09/25/2012 Page: 1 of 3su st ai n t he Int ern al Rev enue Serv ic e’s (“ IRS” ) de te rm in at io n o f hi s i nc om e ta x

de fic ie nc y . Cal li ha n c on ced es th atintax y ear 2 00 7, h e res id edinFlo rid a an d t ha t he work edforth e Sch oo l Di st ric t o f DeSo to Co un ty in ex ch an ge for$3 7,6 40 , as well as t he Sara so taFam il y YMCA, In c. in ex ch an ge for$6 16 . He in si st s, ho wev er, tha t n on e o f hi s wo rkco ns ti tu te d “ em pl oym en t” withi n the m ean in g o f se ct io n 3 12 1( b) of t he Int ern al Rev enue Co de (IRC ), 26 U.S.C. § 3 12 1( b) , and th us , th e m on ey

he rece iv edinco m

pe ns at io n fo r th e se rv ic es he ren de redis no t ta xabl e. Cal li ha n a ckno wled ge s t ha t s ect io n 3 12 1( b) de fin es “ em pl oym en t” as “ an y se rv ic e . . . perf

orm ed. . . by an em

pl oyee . . . w it hi n t he Uni te d S ta te s.” Id . Bu t he no te s t ha t the sec ti on de fin es th e te rm “ St at e[s ]” as “ in cl ud [in g] th e Dis tri ctof Co lu m bi a, th e Co m

m on weal th of P ue rto Ric o, the Virg in Isl an ds , Guam , and Am eri canSam oa ,” id . § 3 12 1( e)(1 ), an d t ha t the term “ Uni te d S ta te s” is si m il arl y de fin edas “ in cl ud [in g]” so m e o f th es e te rri to rie s, i d. § 31 21 (e)( 2) . Accor di ng to Cal li han, b ecau se th es e d efi ni ti on s d o n otsp eci fic al ly m en ti on th e fi fty sta te s, the work tha t h e d idinFlo rid a d idno t co ns ti tu te “ em pl oym en t” un de r se ct io n 31 21 (b ). The Tax C ou rt r eject edth is arg um en t as “ th or ou gh ly dis cred it edan d fri vo lo us ,” an d we a re co m pe ll edto ag ree. Ou r pr eced en t m ak es itab un da nt ly

2 Case: 12-11586 Date Filed: 09/25/2012 Page: 2 of 3cl ear t ha t the term “ Uni te d S ta te s” inth e IRC is no t l im it edto th e Dis tri ctof Co lu m bi a an d t he territ or ie s an d p os se ss io ns of t he Uni te d S ta te s. See Uni te d St at es v. Ward, 8 33 F.2d15 38 , 15 39 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ) (rejec ti ng th e arg um en t as

“ut te rly with ou t m eri t” ); s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Ben ne tt , 44 8 F . App ’x 99 1, 9 92 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) ; Un it edSta te s v . Mo rg an , 41 9 F . App ’x 95 8, 9 59 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). The Tax Co urt thu s co rrec tl y di sm is se d C al li ha n’s as se rti on th atFlo rid a is no t p artof t he “ Uni te d S ta te s,” a ndit s ju dg m en t m us t the refo re b e aff

irmed. 1 AFFIRMED.

The IRS’s tax defic iency deter mination also rested in par t on Callihan’s rec eipt of a 1 $475 grant fr om the State of F lorida in 2007. Although Ca llihan appea rs to challeng e the Tax Court’s conclusion that this was taxable, the only argument he make s hereconce rns the scope of the term “ United States” in the de finition of “employ ment.” We theref

ore unde rstand Callihan’s argument to be that the grant wa s not tax able be cause he re ceive d it in Florida. This sug g estion also fails for

the re ason stated a

bove. 3 Case: 12-11586 Date Filed: 09/25/2012 Page: 3 of 3