John Ted Barefield v. Commissioner of IRS ( 2012 )

Case: 12-10462 Date Filed: 12/18/2012 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10462
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. 6344-10
JOHN TED BAREFIELD,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF IRS,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision
of the U.S. Tax Court
________________________
(December 18, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
John Ted Barefield, proceeding pro se, appeals the tax court’s order granting
summary judgment to the Internal Revenue Service and concluding that he owes a
Case: 12-10462 Date Filed: 12/18/2012 Page: 2 of 3
tax deficiency on social security income he received in 2007. Barefield contends
that: (1) the social security benefits he received are not taxable income; (2) the tax
court should not have granted the IRS’s motion for summary judgment without
allowing him to argue his case in person; and (3) the IRS improperly assessed
interest on his tax deficiency.
We review de novo the tax court’s order granting summary judgment.
Roberts v. Comm’r, 329 F.3d 1224, 1227 (11th Cir. 2003). The tax court granted
summary judgment to the IRS because it concluded that social security income is
taxable regardless of whether that income is for disability benefits or old-age
insurance benefits. Barefield contends that because the social security benefits he
received were disability benefits they are not taxable income. We disagree. The
Internal Revenue Code states, “[G]ross income . . . includes social security
benefits. . . .” 26 U.S.C. § 86(a)(1). It defines a “social security benefit” as “any
amount received by the taxpayer by reason of entitlement to—(A) a monthly
benefit under title II of the Social Security Act, or (B) a tier 1 railroad retirement
benefit.” Id. § 86(d)(1). Title II of the Social Security Act expressly includes
disability benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 423. Under that plain statutory language,
social security disability benefits are taxable income.
Barefield also contends that the tax court should have allowed him to argue
his case in person before granting the IRS’s motion for summary judgment.
2
Case: 12-10462 Date Filed: 12/18/2012 Page: 3 of 3
Barefield cites no authority in support of that contention, and the tax court’s Rules
of Practice and Procedure specifically contemplate a ruling on a motion for
summary judgment without a hearing. See Tax Ct. R. 121(b). Based on that rule,
Barefield’s contention lacks merit.
Finally, Barefield contends that the IRS improperly assessed interest on his
tax deficiency because the tax court’s judgment did not expressly state that interest
would accrue on the amount of the deficiency. 1 Interest on a tax deficiency is
mandatory by statute. See 26 U.S.C. § 6601. The Supreme Court has instructed
that when a taxpayer wants to challenge the validity of that interest, "[t]he proper
procedure [i]s for [the taxpayer] to pay the interest . . . and sue for their refund in
an appropriate federal district court or in the Claims Court." Comm’r v. McCoy,
484 U.S. 3, 7, 108 S.Ct. 217, 219 (1987). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to address the
assessment of interest in this case. See id. at 6, 108 S.Ct. at 219 .
AFFIRMED.
1
Barefield’s brief to this Court refers to “penalt[ies] and interest,” but the record does not
show that any penalties were assessed against him. The final tax bill that Barefield received
from the IRS shows only a deficiency of $769.78 and interest of $135.38.
3