United States v. Jason W. Bennett , 448 F. App'x 991 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-13341 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar DECEMBER 15, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cv-01952-JDW-TGW
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JASON W. BENNETT,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(December 15, 2011)
Before CARNES, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jason W. Bennett, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of the government in a suit to collect Bennett’s unpaid
federal income tax liability. Bennett argues that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment because he was not engaged in any occupation subject to
federal taxation during the relevant tax years.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Holloman v. Mail-Well
Corp., 443 F.3d 832, 836 (11th Cir. 2006). Summary judgment is appropriate
where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R .Civ. P. 56(a); Williams v. Mast
Biosurgery USA, Inc., 644 F.3d 1312, 1318 (11th Cir. 2011). While we liberally
construe pro se briefs, “issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed
abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
Bennett concedes he held private-sector jobs in Florida and received
earnings from them during the tax years at issue. He argues, however, that his
earnings are not subject to federal income taxation because (1) he was not
employed to perform services for the United States and earned income only from
private-sector employers, and (2) the federal tax code’s definition of “United
States” includes only the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
2
Guam, and American Samoa.
Bennett’s arguments fail. We have long held that income derived from
employment in the private sector is subject to federal income taxation. United
States v. Morse, 532 F.3d 1130, 1132-33 (11th Cir. 2008) (rejecting argument that
income is not subject to federal taxation when “derived from employment in the
private sector” as “utterly without merit” and “frivolous”); Motes v. United States,
785 F.2d 928, 928 (11th Cir. 1986) (rejecting argument “that only public servants
are subject to tax liability”). We have similarly ruled that the tax code does not
limit the definition of the “United States” to include only its capital, federal
enclaves, and territories. United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir.
1987). Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judgment is
AFFIRMED.
3