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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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.