Miller-Wagenknecht v. Comm IRS , 285 F. App'x 956 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2008 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    7-22-2008
    Miller-Wagenknecht v. Comm IRS
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 07-4714
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
    Recommended Citation
    "Miller-Wagenknecht v. Comm IRS" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 816.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/816
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 07-4714
    ___________
    J. J. MILLER-WAGENKNECHT,
    Appellant
    v.
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States Tax Court
    (Tax Court No. 8347-07)
    Tax Court Judge: Honorable Lewis R. Carluzzo
    ____________________________________
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    July 15, 2008
    Before: AMBRO, FUENTES and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    (Filed: July 22, 2008 )
    ___________
    OPINION
    ___________
    PER CURIAM
    J. J. Miller-Wagenknecht appeals, pro se, from the order of the United States Tax
    Court dismissing her case. We will affirm.
    I.
    It appears undisputed that Miller-Wagenknecht never filed Form 1040 federal
    income tax returns for the 2003 and 2004 tax years. Instead, she submitted to the
    Commissioner of Internal Revenue documents for the respective years entitled “Notice of
    Affidavit Statement of :J.-J.: Miller-Wagenknecht In Protest of Internal Revenue Code
    Section 6011.” Miller-Wagenknecht claimed “zero” tax liabilities for both years based
    on, among other things, the notion that she was not subject to federal income taxation.
    During 2003 and 2004, Miller-Wagenknecht respectively received self-
    employment income in the amounts of $89,204 and $79,233, wages of $1,504 and $1,480
    from an insurance company, and taxable Social Security benefits of $14,787 and $15,096.
    The Commissioner accordingly issued a notice of deficiency determining that she owed
    federal income taxes as well as penalties for failure to file tax returns and to pay estimated
    taxes.1
    Miller-Wagenknecht then filed a petition in the Tax Court alleging, inter alia, that
    the Commissioner’s determinations were erroneous because no “valid original return”
    was filed or appeared on the IRS’s computer records. (A000020-A000021.) The
    1
    According to the notice of deficiency, Miller-Wagenknecht owed the following
    amounts: (1) income taxes of $33,481 for 2003 and $29,211 for 2004; (2) penalties of
    $8,370.25 for 2003 and $7,302.75 for 2004 on account of her failure to file tax returns;
    and (3) penalties of $876.21 for 2003 and $847.90 for 2004 for failing to pay estimated
    taxes. The Commissioner also assessed additional penalties for failure to pay under
    I.R.C. § 6651(a)(2).
    2
    Commissioner moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief
    could be granted. The Tax Court ordered Miller-Wagenknecht to file an amended
    petition containing the allegations of error and statements of fact required by Tax Court
    Rule 34. She accordingly filed an amended petition containing additional claims and
    allegations. The Tax Court, however, granted the Commissioner’s motion and dismissed
    the case. It was “satisfied that the amended petition fails to raise any justiciable issue
    either with respect to the deficiencies or the additions to tax.” (A000003.) It further
    concluded that her failure to file income tax returns did not preclude the Commissioner
    from making the deficiency determinations.
    Miller-Wagenknecht filed a motion to vacate, which the Tax Court denied. She
    then filed a timely notice of appeal.2
    II.
    Especially given the rigorous pleading requirements of Tax Court Rule 34, the Tax
    Court properly dismissed the petition because of Miller-Wagenknecht’s failure to state
    any claim upon which relief could be granted. She has not raised, either before the Tax
    Court or in this present appeal, any serious dispute as to either her receipt of unreported
    income in the amounts stated by the Commissioner or her failure to file the necessary
    2
    We have jurisdiction over this Tax Court appeal pursuant to I.R.C. § 7482(a)(1).
    We exercise plenary review over the Tax Court’s conclusions of law and review its
    factual findings for clear error. See, e.g., PNC Bancorp, Inc. v. Comm’r, 
    212 F.3d 822
    ,
    827 (3d Cir. 2000).
    3
    federal income tax returns and pay the federal taxes due. In the words of the
    Commissioner’s appellate brief, “her only comprehensible challenges to the
    Commissioner’s determination [before the Tax Court] consisted of broad, conclusory
    denials of liability and frivolous, tax protest-type arguments.” (Appellee’s Br. at 12.) We
    likewise reject the arguments raised by Miller-Wagenknecht on appeal because they are
    without merit.
    Among her numerous contentions, Miller-Wagenknecht appears to argue that the
    Form 1040 tax returns for 2003 and 2004 did not comply with the requirements of the
    Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), see 
    44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-31
    . She actually admits that
    the form included an Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) control number. In
    turn, Treasury Regulation § 602.101 expressly lists this particular number among the
    many others “assigned to collections of information in [IRS] regulations by the [OMB]
    under the [PRA].” 
    26 C.F.R. § 602.101
    (a). Accordingly, it is well established that Form
    1040 satisfies the requirements of the PRA. See, e.g., United States v. Patridge, 
    507 F.3d 1092
    , 1095 (7th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 
    128 S. Ct. 1721
     (2008); United States v. Dawes,
    
    951 F.2d 1189
    , 1193 (10th Cir. 1991). In any case, any alleged noncompliance with the
    PRA paperwork requirements would not preclude the Commissioner from assessing
    federal income tax liability and enforcing the statutory obligations requiring taxpayers to
    file federal income tax returns. See, e.g., Patridge, 
    507 F.3d at 1095
    ; United States v.
    Hicks, 
    947 F.2d 1356
    , 1359-60 (9th Cir. 1991).
    4
    Miller-Wagenknecht further argues that she did in fact file federal income tax
    returns for 2003 and 2004. Specifically, she points to the self-styled “Notice of
    Affidavit” documents she sent to the Commissioner. According to the Seventh Circuit
    decision cited in her opening and reply briefs, “[t]he cases hold that to be deemed a
    return, a document filed with the IRS must (1) purport to be a ‘return,’ (2) be signed
    under penalty of perjury, (3) contain enough information to enable the taxpayer’s tax
    liability to be calculated, and (4) ‘evince[] an honest and genuine endeavor to satisfy the
    law.’” In re Payne, 
    431 F.3d 1055
    , 1057 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Zellerbach Paper Co. v.
    Helvering, 
    293 U.S. 172
    , 180 (1934); United States v. Moore, 
    627 F.2d 830
    , 834-35 (7th
    Cir. 1980)).
    Miller-Wagenknecht’s submissions to the IRS did not satisfy either the third or the
    fourth requirements. Her “Notices of Affidavits” failed to provide the financial
    information required to calculate her tax liabilities for 2003 and 2004. See, e.g., United
    States v. Edelson, 
    604 F.2d 232
    , 234 (3d Cir. 1979) (per curiam) (“[I]t is now well
    established that tax forms that do not contain financial information upon which a
    taxpayer’s tax liability can be determined do not constitute returns within the meaning of
    the Internal Revenue Code.” (citations omitted)). They also did not represent a honest
    and reasonable attempt to satisfy her tax law requirements. Instead, the lengthy
    documents, each consisting of almost 50 single-spaced pages, constituted, at best, legal
    briefs challenging the legality and applicability of the federal income tax. Her claims of
    5
    “zero” tax liabilities were based, not on a real account of her financial circumstances, but
    on frivolous legal theories for why she was not personally subject to the federal income
    tax and why the Commissioner’s enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code was
    unconstitutional and illegal. The Commissioner in turn had no legal obligation to respond
    to her extensive and unsupported submissions. Accordingly, the Commissioner and the
    Tax Court properly determined that Miller-Wagenknecht failed to file federal income tax
    returns for the years at issue.
    Finally, we have considered Miller-Wagenknecht’s remaining arguments, and we
    conclude that they also are lacking in any conceivable merit. For instance, her argument
    that the IRS failed to establish its jurisdiction over her merely reiterated some of the
    frivolous “tax protest” theories presented in her “Notices of Affidavit.” Simply put, the
    Internal Revenue Code imposes an income tax on the taxable income of all citizens or
    residents of the United States. It cannot be seriously disputed that Miller-Wagenknecht,
    who was evidently born in Ohio and currently resides in Pennsylvania, is a citizen and
    resident of the United States for federal income tax purposes. See, e.g., Lonsdale v.
    United States, 
    919 F.2d 1440
    , 1447 & n.4, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990) (listing frivolous “tax
    protest” theories); Sauers v. Comm’r, 
    771 F.2d 64
    , 66 & n.2, 67, 68 n.6 (3d Cir. 1985)
    (same). We further reject her contention that the notice of deficiency was invalid on the
    grounds that it was not “signed” by the Commissioner under penalty of perjury. See, e.g.,
    Urban v. Comm’r, 
    964 F.2d 888
    , 889-90 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Given her failure
    6
    to file the requisite returns, the IRS also properly prepared its own substitute tax returns
    for 2003 and 2004 pursuant to I.R.C. § 6020(b)(1).
    III.
    For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Tax Court properly dismissed the
    case for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, we will affirm.
    7