Quatloos! > Tax
Scams > Tax
Protestors > EXHIBIT:
Tax Protestor Dummies > Cases
("Damn, We Lost Again! And why is
it that people who sell
tax protestor materials file their tax returns anyway . . .")
CITE: Daniel Thomas Miller v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-390;
No. 98-4021 (August 4, 1999)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DANIEL THOMAS MILLER,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
August 4, 1999
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
("R&R"). Therein, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court
grant the Government's Motion to Dismiss this case and Case No. 98-4117. For
the reasons stated herein, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. The above-titled case
and Case No. 98-4117 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
This is a tax refund case brought by Plaintiff, Daniel Thomas Miller ("Miller"),
who is proceeding pro se. On March 2, 1998, Miller filed a Complaint in Case
No. 98-4021, seeking a refund of the federal income taxes withheld from his
1996 wages. He filed the same claim with respect to his 1997 withheld taxes
on November 16, 1998. On November 23, 1998, the Court ordered that these cases
be consolidated under Case No. 98-4021 since the only difference between the
two cases was the relevant tax year.
Attached to each of Miller's Complaints is his W-2 Wage and Tax Statement
("W-2 Form") for the relevant tax year. For 1996, his W-2 Form indicates
that he had "[w]ages, tips, other compensation" paid to him by his
employer, United Airlines, in the amount of $132,778.26, For that same year,
United Airlines withheld, or as alleged by Miller "erroneously distrained," $31,686.71
in federal income tax. For 1997, his W-2 Form indicates that he received "[w]ages,
tips, other compensation" in the amount of $147,457.00, and United Airlines
withheld federal income tax in the amount of $36,063.06.
In his Complaints, Miller seeks a refund of the federal taxes withheld
for both 1996 and 1997. (Complaint, No. 98-4021, paragraph VI; Complaint, No.
98-4117, paragraph VI). Attached to each Complaint is a letter he sent to the
Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") prior to filing the Complaints in
this Court. For tax year 1996, Miller sent a letter to the IRS along with his
Individual Income Tax Return, or Form 1040, on June 25, 1997. Therein, he claims
that the income tax established under the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC")
does not apply to him because, inter alia, there is no statute or regulation
that makes him "A PEOPLE, A Private Christian" liable under the IRC;
as "A PEOPLE, A Private Christian" he did not earn "wages" or "gross
income" as defined in the IRC or regulations; and he had no taxable "income" according
to the meaning of the term and the Supreme Court's definition of the term.
The letter he sent to the IRS demanding a refund for the 1997 tax year sets
forth the same arguments. Without going into great detail concerning his arguments,
it suffices to say that if Miller's interpretation of the IRC were correct,
an overwhelming majority of this nation's taxpayers are incorrectly paying
federal income tax.
For the 1996 tax year, Miller filed a Form 1040, wherein he stated that
he had "[w]ages, salaries, tips, etc." in the amount of $132,778.
In the section of the form for calculating gross adjusted income, which provides
spaces to list possible deductions, Miller did not specify any deductions.
Nevertheless, at line 30 of the form, which is the line specified for the sum
of all deductions, Miller entered his entire income for 1996. As a result,
he reported an adjusted gross income of $0.00. Miller apparently did not file
a Form 1040 for tax year 1997, since in his Objection to the R&R he took
exception to the Magistrate Judge's statement that he filed a tax return for
both the 1996 and 1997 tax years. It appears that Miller only sent the IRS
an "informal demand" for a total refund for the 1997 tax year without
an accompanying Form 1040.
This Order follows.
STANDARDS FOR MOTIONS TO DISMISS/FOR JUDGMENT
Because the pleadings in this case are closed, the Court treats the Government's
Motion to Dismiss as a Motion for Judgment pursuant to Rule 12(c). This, however,
has no bearing the outcome of the Government's Motion since the legal standards
used in resolving motions for judgment are the same as those used for motions
to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See GATX Leasing Corp. v. National Union Fire
Ins. Co., 64 F.3d 1112, 1114 (7th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).
In resolving a motion to dismiss, this Court must consider all well pleaded
facts as true and must draw all inferences in favor of the non-moving party.
See Bontkowski v. First Natl Bank of Cicero, 998 F.2d 459, 461 (7th Cir. 1993),
cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1012 (1993). Additionally, because Miller has attached
documents to his Complaints, this Court is entitled to consider them in resolving
the Government's Motion to Dismiss. See Beam v. IPCO Corp., 838 F.2d 242, 244
(7th Cir. 1988).
In ruling on a motion to dismiss, courts consider whether relief is possible
under any set of facts that could be established as consistent with the allegations
in the Complaint. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). This Court
will dismiss a claim only if it is beyond doubt that no set of facts would
entitle the. Plaintiff to relief. See Chaney v. Suburban Bus Div., 52 F.3d
623, 627 (7th Cir. 1995); Venture Assoc. Corp. v. Zenith Data Systems Corp.,
987 F.2d 429, 432 (7th Cir. 1993).
Both Complaints brought by Miller are absolutely without merit, as the
claims he makes therein have been routinely rejected by federal courts. See
McLaughlin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Serv., 832 F.2d 986, 986-87
(7th Cir. 1987) (tax protesters who claim they are exempt from payment of income
taxes are "thorns in the side of the federal judiciary"); see also
Biermann v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Serv., 769 F.2d 707, 709 (11th
Cir. 1985) (plaintiff's claim that he was not subjected to tax liability as
a "natural individual" and "unenfranchised freeman" rejected
by the court); Madison v. United States, 752 F.2d 607, 608-09 (11th Cir. 1985)
(argument that wage earners are not subject to income tax deemed frivolous). "The
starting point for income taxation is that all sums paid to, or on behalf of,
an employee are taxable income." Howell v. United States, 775 F.2d 887,
889 [7th Cir. 1985). Miller's 1996 and 1997 W-2s, which are attached to his
Complaints, show that he received "[w]ages, tips, other compensation" from
United Airlines during both of these years which is subject to federal income
tax. His arguments to the contrary are nothing more than rhetoric. Perhaps
the Magistrate Judge stated it best in his R&R: "Most of plaintiff's
arguments are, at best, only marginally coherent. To the extent they can be
understood at all, these arguments involve tortured and nonsensical interpretations
of the [IRC]." (R&R at 1).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.
The above-titled case and Case No. 98-4117 are TERMINATED.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-titled case and Case No. 98-4117
are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
ENTERED this 4th day of August, 1999.
Michael M. Milan
United States District Judge
to Tax Protestor Exhibit