United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-3652

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Southern District of Iowa.

Donald Dale Miller, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 17, 2011

Filed: October 24, 2011

___________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, LOKEN and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Donald Dale Miller pled guilty to two counts of tax evasion in violation of 26

U.S.C. § 7201 for the years 2003 and 2004. He reserved the right to appeal the

district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss for improper venue and lack of 1

jurisdiction. This court affirms.

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States DistrictJudge for the District of 1

Minnesota.
Miller tried to evade taxes by titling properties in the names of trusts he created

for this purpose. He under-reported his employment income and hid rental income

by instructing employers and tenants to make payments to a bank account of a trust

he controlled. Neither Miller nor the trusts filed federal tax returns, even after the

IRS gave him the opportunity to file late returns. The total tax loss for 2002 to 2006

is $70,784.

Miller contends that an IRS restructuring in 2000 abrogated the duty to pay

taxes by eliminating the district offices where taxpayers previously filed returns. He

believes he could not evade taxes that he had no duty to pay.

Miller sometimes phrases his argument as a lack of jurisdiction. Miller’s

arguments, however, do not implicate restrictions on the court’s jurisdiction. See

United States v. Barry, 371 F. Appx. 3, 5 (11th Cir. 2010) (“The [defendants] were

charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 26 U.S.C. § 7203, which involves

‘offenses against the laws of the United States,’ such that the district court had

subject-matter jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231.”).

This court reviews de novo a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss for

improper venue. United States v. Howell, 552 F.3d 709, 712 (8th Cir. 2009). Miller

admitted in the plea agreement that he committed acts of tax evasion in the Southern

District of Iowa, where he resided. These acts included placing assets located there,

and receiving payments for work and rent generated there, in names other than his

own. “In a case brought under 26 U.S.C. § 7201, venue is proper...where an attempt

to evade [] occurred.” United States v. Felak, 831 F.2d 794, 799 (8th Cir. 1987)

(citation omitted). Venue was appropriate in the Southern District of Iowa.

Miller emphasizes 26 U.S.C. § 6091(b)(1)(A), instructing taxpayers to file 

returnsin the IRS districts where they reside or have their principal place of business,

or in the service centers that serve them. This very section empowers the Secretary

-2-
of the Treasury to prescribe a place for filing returns for persons — as Miller claims

to be — with no legal residence or principal place of business in an internal revenue

district. 26 U.S.C. § 6091(b)(1)(B)(i). The Secretary exercised this authority in 26

C.F.R. § 1.6091-2(c) (2003) and 26 C.F.R. § 1.6091-2 (2004). Miller had a duty to

pay taxes, which he evaded. See United States v. Springer, 427 F. Appx. 650 (10th

Cir. 2011) (“...Springer [argues] the IRS has no authority to collect taxes outside of

Washington, D.C., ..., ignoring authority recognizing such arguments as patently

frivolous.” (citation omitted)); Order Denying Reconsideration ofEmergencyMotion

for Stay of Final Judgment and Sale Pending Appeal at 2, Barry, No. 10-5037

(December 15, 2010) (“This motion...contains numerous blatantly frivolous

statements, such as: .... [O]n page 4, ‘The Secretary [of the Treasury] is prohibited

by Title 4, Sec. 72 from exercising his office outside the District of Columbia.’”).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-