Court Opinion

ID: 9838926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-08 20:01:24.229115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:54.481293
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11647    Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 09/08/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                   [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                 No. 23-11647
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       GEORGE A. TEACHERSON,
       A Natural Citizen of the Republic,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

                                                    Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 9:23-cv-80722-RLR
USCA11 Case: 23-11647      Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 09/08/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-11647

                            ____________________

       Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              In May of 2023, George A. Teacherson ﬁled a pro se com-
       plaint against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, alleging that
       the federal income tax is unconstitutional and that requiring him
       to pay such a tax violates his First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth
       Amendment rights. Mr. Teacherson also alleged that the income
       tax violates various clauses in the Constitution. He sought declar-
       atory and injunctive relief. Because “the constitutionality of the
       [i]ncome [t]ax is well-settled,” the district court dismissed the
       claims with prejudice pursuant to its screening obligation under 28
       U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See D.E. 9.
              Mr. Teacherson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
       court’s sua sponte dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a
       claim. The Commissioner has moved for summary aﬃrmance of
       the district court’s order. Mr. Teacherson ﬁled a response to the
       motion, and the Commissioner ﬁled a reply. Mr. Teacherson then
       ﬁled an additional “response and relief request” with respect to the
       Commissioner’s reply brief.
              We review a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915
       (e)(2)(B)(ii) de novo, viewing the factual allegations in the complaint
       as true. See Hughes v. Lott, 350 F. 3d 1157, 1159–60 (11th Cir. 2003).
       Summary disposition is appropriate in at least two circumstances—
       “those cases where time is truly of the essence” and “those in which
USCA11 Case: 23-11647        Document: 26-1         Date Filed: 09/08/2023        Page: 3 of 4

       23-11647                  Opinion of the Court                               3

       the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law
       so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of
       the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is friv-
       olous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir.
       1969). 1
               Mr. Teacherson’s contentions—both in his complaint and in
       his response to the Commissioner’s motion for summary aﬃr-
       mance—rest on the assertion that the federal income tax is uncon-
       stitutional. For example, he states in his amended response to the
       Commissioner’s motion that wages are irrelevant and that the in-
       come tax violates the Constitution.
              Like the district court, we are unpersuaded by Mr. Teacher-
       son’s arguments. Indeed, we have held similar claims made before
       us to be “patently frivolous.” See Biermann v. C.I.R., 769 F.2d 707
       (11th Cir. 1985) (explaining that the assertions that “wages are not
       ‘income’” and that “withholdings from . . . wages were illegal
       ‘taxes’” “have been rejected by courts at all levels of the judiciary,
       and, therefore, warrant no further discussion”). See also Stubbs v.
       Comm’r, 797 F.2d 936, 938 (11th Cir. 1986) (explaining that the argu-
       ment that wages are not taxable income and that the appellant was
       not a person required to ﬁle a tax return to be like arguments “re-
       jected by courts at all levels of the judiciary and . . . patently frivo-
       lous”); Motes v. United States, 785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir. 1986)

       1 Groendyke Transportation, constitutes binding precedent in the Eleventh Cir-

       cuit under Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en
       banc).
USCA11 Case: 23-11647        Document: 26-1        Date Filed: 09/08/2023       Page: 4 of 4

       4                        Opinion of the Court                     23-11647

       (holding as frivolous the “arsenal of arguments” that “wages are
       not income subject to tax but are a tax on property such as their
       labor; that only public servants are subject to tax liability; . . . that
       withholding taxes violates equal protection; that they should be al-
       lowed to exclude from the amount of wages they receive the cost
       of maintaining their well-being”).
                In sum, Mr. Teacherson’s claims lack merit and have been
       repeatedly rejected. See e.g., Swanson v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue,
       2021 WL 4551628, at *2 (11th Cir. Oct. 5, 2021) (explaining that the
       argument that “the federal income tax is unconstitutional because
       it is a direct tax without apportionment . . . is frivolous under our
       precedent”). And because the Commissioner’s position “is clearly
       right as a matter of law” and “there can be no substantial question
       as to the outcome of the case,” we ﬁnd summary disposition to be
       appropriate. Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. We therefore
       GRANT the government’s motion for summary aﬃrmance. 2
               AFFIRMED.

       2 Mr. Teacherson’s motion for default and other relief for “failing to prose-

       cute” is denied.