Daniel Thomas Miller

DANIEL THOMAS MILLER,Plaintiff,
...
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.
...
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.
...
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).
...
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.