Case: 17-13628 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-13628
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. 13829-15 L
TED LAWRENCE WILLIAMS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
U.S. Tax Court
________________________
(May 29, 2018)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, MARCUS, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-13628 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 Page: 2 of 3
The Internal Revenue Service sent a notice of deficiency to Ted Williams for
unpaid income taxes for 2003 and 2004. After a collection due process hearing,
the IRS upheld the proposed levy action against Williams and rejected as frivolous
his arguments that he was excluded from taxation, that the United States Tax Court
is illegitimate, and that only certain citizens (such as federal employees) are subject
to income tax.
Williams filed a pro se petition in the Tax Court challenging the IRS’s
determination. The IRS moved (1) for summary judgment on the ground that its
collection action was proper as a matter of law, (2) to impose a penalty against
Williams for his frivolous tax protestor arguments, and (3) to remove the
suspension of the proposed levy against him. The Tax Court granted the IRS’s
motions. This is Williams’ appeal.
Williams contends that the Tax Court and IRS lacked jurisdiction over him
and that he is not subject to tax. Those arguments are frivolous. See, e.g., Pollard
v. Comm’r, IRS, 816 F.2d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1987) (“[Petitioner] also argued
before the Tax Court that the Commissioner had neither personal nor subject
matter jurisdiction and that he is not a person subject to tax. Arguments such as
these are patently frivolous and similar arguments have been rejected by this Court
on numerous occasions.”); McNair v. Eggers, 788 F.2d 1509, 1510 (11th Cir.
1986) (rejecting such “tax protestor type arguments” as “patently frivolous”). And
2
Case: 17-13628 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 Page: 3 of 3
his brief, liberally construed, does not address any of the Tax Court’s reasons for
granting the IRS’s motions, which means that he has abandoned those issues. See
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[I]ssues not briefed on
appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.”).1
AFFIRMED.
1
He cites no support for his perfunctory assertion that the IRS sent a deficiency notice to
the wrong address. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir.
2014) (“[S]imply stating that an issue exists, without further argument or discussion, constitutes
abandonment of that issue and precludes our considering the issue on appeal.”) (quotation marks
omitted).
3