Court Opinion

ID: 9896558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-13 18:02:13.180469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:07.961961
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10286    Document: 21-1     Date Filed: 11/13/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10286
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       JASON C. ANDERSON,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-00022-MHC
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10286        Document: 21-1         Date Filed: 11/13/2023       Page: 2 of 5

       2                         Opinion of the Court                     23-10286

       Before WILSON, ABUDU, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
                Jason Anderson, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district
       court’s grant of summary judgment for the Government in its ac-
       tion to reduce to judgment Anderson’s unpaid federal income tax
       liabilities. He asserts (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear
       the case, (2) the ten-year statute of limitations had expired at the
       time the Government sued, and (3) the district court proceedings
       were unconstitutional. We address each issue in turn, and affirm
       the district court’s grant of summary judgment. 1
                                   I. JURISDICTION
              Anderson asserts the district court lacked personal jurisdic-
       tion over him because “he is not a resident of the District of Co-
       lumbia or of a state under the external authority of the United
       States.” He also contends the district court erred by relying on his
       previous lawsuits in establishing jurisdiction, that he has not
       waived the issue of jurisdiction, and he is not a “taxpayer.”
              The district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over An-
       derson’s case as a civil action arising under an Act of Congress
       providing for internal revenue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1340 (providing the
       federal district courts have jurisdiction over a civil action arising
       under an Act of Congress providing for internal revenue). It also

       1 We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Kolodziej v.

       Mason, 774 F.3d 736, 740 (11th Cir. 2014).
USCA11 Case: 23-10286      Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 11/13/2023     Page: 3 of 5

       23-10286               Opinion of the Court                          3

       had personal jurisdiction over Anderson, as he is a resident of Geor-
       gia. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A) (explaining federal courts have
       personal jurisdiction over served defendants subject to the jurisdic-
       tion of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district
       court is located). Moreover, none of Anderson’s other attempts to
       evade federal jurisdiction are meritorious. See United States v. Ward,
       833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir. 1987) (describing contentions that
       federal jurisdiction extends only to Washington D.C., and federal
       territories and enclaves, or that federal income tax laws do not ap-
       ply to residents of the states, as “utterly without merit”).
                       II. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
              Anderson contends the statute of limitations had expired be-
       fore the Government sued. He asserts, relying on a Fair Debt Col-
       lection Practices Act case, Rotkiske v. Klemm, 140 S. Ct. 355 (2019),
       that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of the vio-
       lation, not the date it was discovered. He argues the ten-year stat-
       ute of limitations started to run when the IRS filed its dummy re-
       turns on October 18, 2010, and had expired before the Government
       brought suit in 2022.
               The Government filed suit within the statute of limitations.
       The IRS assessed Anderson’s tax deficiency on January 9, 2012, and
       the Government brought suit on January 4, 2022, within ten years
       after the assessment of the tax. See 26 U.S.C. § 6502(a)(1) (providing
       a proceeding to collect income tax must be brought within ten
       years of the assessment of the tax). The IRS’s filing of dummy
USCA11 Case: 23-10286         Document: 21-1         Date Filed: 11/13/2023          Page: 4 of 5

       4                          Opinion of the Court                        23-10286

       returns 2 did not affect the statute of limitations. See id. § 6501(b)(3)
       (providing the execution of a dummy return does not start the run-
       ning of the statute of limitations on assessment and collection).
                       III. DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS
              Anderson asserts the IRS is unconstitutional, claiming its au-
       thority results from the treaty power and it has no legislative man-
       date. He asserts the IRS’s powers are foreign, so he cannot be ex-
       pected to submit to its jurisdiction. He contends the phrase “United
       States” is ambiguous as it applies to the IRS, and the IRS’s use of
       dummy returns violates the major questions doctrine. He also ar-
       gues the district court’s grant of summary judgment was unconsti-
       tutional because it did not hold oral argument on his claims and he
       would have engaged with discovery if given more time to do so.
               Anderson’s constitutional arguments against the IRS are typ-
       ical of those generally put forth by tax protesters and are patently
       frivolous. See McNair v. Eggers, 788 F.2d 1509, 1510 (11th Cir. 1986)
       (holding “tax protester” arguments alleging that citizens are not
       subject to IRS jurisdiction are patently frivolous). The district court
       was not required to conduct an oral hearing before granting the
       Government’s motion for summary judgment. See Milburn v.
       United States, 734 F.2d 762, 765 (11th Cir. 1984) (stating a district
       court granting summary judgment under Rule 56 is not required
       to conduct an oral hearing). The major questions doctrine does

       2 If a taxpayer fails to file a required return, the Secretary of the Treasury may

       file a so-called “dummy return” as the return of the taxpayer. 26 U.S.C. § 6020.
USCA11 Case: 23-10286     Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 11/13/2023    Page: 5 of 5

       23-10286               Opinion of the Court                        5

       not apply to the IRS’s practice of filing dummy tax returns, which
       is authorized by statute. See 26 U.S.C. § 6020; West Virginia v. EPA,
       142 S. Ct. 2587, 2609 (2022) (explaining the major questions doc-
       trine states that, in certain extraordinary cases, separation of pow-
       ers and an understanding of legislative intent means that courts
       should be reluctant to read large delegations of congressional au-
       thority from an ambiguous statutory text).
             Accordingly, we affirm the district court.
             AFFIRMED.