- 14 -
On April 17, 1989, petitioner and Mr. Buck mailed the
purported return to respondent. The purported return was not
signed by either petitioner or Mr. Buck. Rather, the purported
return contained the statement "Fifth Amendment" in the spaces
provided for petitioner's and Mr. Buck's signatures.
This Court has specifically held that the submission of an
unsigned document purporting to be a return does not constitute
the filing of a "return". Beard v. Commissioner, supra at 777-
778; Richardson v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 818, 823 (1979); Joseph
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-77 (where Form 1040 contained
the statement "5th" in the space provided for the taxpayer's
signature, the Court held that such form was not a valid return
and did not start the running of the statute of limitations); see
Sloan v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 137 (1994), affd. 53 F.3d 799
(7th Cir. 1995); see also sec. 6061; sec. 1.6061-1(a), Income Tax
Regs. Thus, the purported return submitted by petitioner and Mr.
Buck on April 19, 1989, did not constitute a return.
As relevant herein, the term "deficiency" is defined by
section 6211(a) as the excess of the amount of tax actually due
over the amount shown as tax by the taxpayer upon the return, if
the taxpayer made a return showing an amount of tax due. Sec.
6211(a)(1)(A). Because petitioner did not file a return before
the notice of deficiency was issued, a deficiency existed in an
amount equal to the entire tax due. See sec. 6211(b)(1);
Olmstead v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-216 (where the taxpayer
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011