- 6 -
In July 1995, petitioner mailed to respondent a Form 1040X
(1994 amended return) to amend his earlier 1994 return. On the
1994 amended return, petitioner reported the same items of
income, deduction, and exemption as he reported on the original
1994 return, as well as the same tax liability and refund amount.
As apparently had become a matter of routine, petitioner also
signed the 1994 amended return and stamped above his signature
"Without Prejudice UCC 1-207". Once again, in the explanation
portion of the 1994 amended return, petitioner recited tax
protester rhetoric similar to that stated on his previous
returns. Also, petitioner attached to his 1994 amended return a
letter and several documents asserting further tax protester
jargon. For similar reasons as recited above, respondent did not
accept petitioner's 1994 amended return for filing.
In the notice of deficiency for 1992, respondent disallowed
petitioner's "Frivolous deduction" of $2,040.63 and itemized
5(...continued)
Commissioner, 102 T.C. 137, 146 (1994), affd. 53 F.3d 799 (7th
Cir. 1995), this Court held that a tampered return does not
constitute a return where the tampered portion of the return
affects the form's useability by respondent, requiring the
handling of the return through special procedures and removal of
the return from normal processing channels, thus substantially
impeding the Commissioner's physical task of handling and
verifying tax returns. Here, by claiming a "compensation
exclusion" of his salary from tax, reflected by a material
alteration of the Form 1040, would have required respondent to
withdraw petitioner's return from normal processing to ascertain
the merits of petitioner's claim that such income was excludable
from tax.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011