FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T MARCH 24, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 22 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :1 0- cv -0 00 35 -SPM -AK
STEVEN MARTINS, l Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 24 , 20 11 )

Befo re MAR CUS, WILSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

. PER CURI AM:

St ev en Mar ti n s a p p e a l s pr o se th e di st ric t co ur t’s su a sp on te di sm is sa l of hi s

ta x refu nd act io n br ou gh t pu rs ua nt to 26 U.S.C. §§ 64 02 (a) & 74 22

. In hi s co m pl ai nt ,Mar ti ns as se rte d th at he was en ti tl ed to a fu ll refu nd of al l fed eral ta xe s pa id th ro ug h

wit hh ol di ng , as th e pa y he rece iv ed fro m hi s em pl oym en t at Uni te d Parc el Serv ic e (“ UPS”) in Gain es vi ll e, Fl or id a di d no t qu al ify as ta xa bl e wag es wit hi n th e m ean in g
of cert ai n pr ov is io ns in th e In te rn al Rev en ue Co de (“ IRC” ). The di st ric t co ur t su a

sp on te di sm is se d th e act io n as fri vo lo us

. Mar ti ns as se rts on ap pe al th at th e di st ric t

co ur t erre d in de te rm in in g hi s cl ai m fo r a ta x refu nd was fri vo lo us , be cau se it di d no t
ad dr es s hi s no ve l arg um en ts co nc ern in g th e m ean in g of cert ai n provi si on s in th e IRC.

Afte r th or ou gh rev ie w, we affi rm

. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co u r t ’s s u a s p on te di sm is sa l of a cl ai m de no vo

. See

Am eri can Uni te d Life In s. Co

. v. Mar ti ne z, 48 0 F.3 d 10 43 , 10 57 , 1 0 7 0 (1 1t h Ci r.
20 07 ). Howev er, a de te rm in at io n of fri vo li ty is rev ie wed fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. See

Co rd ob a v . Dil la rd ’s, Inc ., 41 9 F .3d 11 69 , 11 79 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ).

W e ha ve lo ng he ld as fri vo lo us cl ai m s th at in co m e “ de riv ed fro m em pl oym en t
in th e pr iv at e se ct or [] is no t su bjec t to fed eral ta xa ti on .” Uni te d St at es v. Mo rs e, 53 2

F.3 d 11 30 , 11 32 -3 3 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (p er cu ria m ); se e Mo te s v. Uni te d St at es , 78 5

F.2 d 92 8, 92 8 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 86 ) (rejec ti ng arg um en t th at “ on ly pu bl ic se rv a n t s a r e

su bjec t t o t ax li ab il it y ”).

Here , t h e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y de te rm in ed th at Mar ti ns ’ cl ai m s were
fr i v ol ou s. Mar ti ns do es no t di sp ut e th at he rece iv ed m on ey fro m UPS in ex ch an ge

2fo r hi s se rv ic es as a dr iv er du rin g th e ta x y ears in qu es ti on , n or do es he di sp ut e th e

go ve rn m en t’s cal cu la ti on reg ard in g th e am ou nt of m on ey he rece iv ed

. He arg ue s

on ly th at th e m on e y t h a t h e rece iv ed fo r hi s se rv ic es is no n- ta xa bl e, ba se d on a

n a r r o w read in g of th e st at ut or y la ng ua ge in th e IRC an d be cau se he wor ke d fo r a

pr iv at e se ct or co rp or at io n. The se arg um en ts are fr iv ol ou s. See Mo rs e, 53 2 F .3d at

11 32 -3 3; se e al so Mo te s, 78 5 F.2 d at 92 8. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s

su m m ary di sm is sa l o f Mar ti ns ’ act io n fo r a t ax refu nd

. AFFIRMED.

3