- 8 -
Nor do we agree with the Fund's alternative argument as to
1991; namely, that Banker's Trust's 1991 Form 1042 triggered the
running of the Fund's 3-year assessment period. The Fund is the
"taxpayer" to which section 6501(a) refers, and, more
importantly, Banker's Trust's Form 1042 is not the Fund's return.
See Holmstrom v. Commissioner, 35 B.T.A. 1092, 1103 (1937);
Iderstine v. Commissioner, 24 B.T.A. 291, 296 (1931); Cantrell &
Cochrane, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 19 B.T.A. 16, 26 (1930).
Banker's Trust's 1991 Form 1042 is not even a "return" within the
meaning of section 6501. A document is a "return" for purposes
of section 6501 only when it (1) purports to be a return,
(2) evinces an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the
requirements of the tax law, (3) contains sufficient information
to calculate the taxpayer's tax liability, and (4) is executed by
the taxpayer under penalties of perjury. See Beard v.
Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766 (1984), affd. per curiam 793 F.2d 139
(6th Cir. 1986). In addition to the fact that Banker's Trust's
1991 Form 1042 fails to set forth enough information to allow
respondent to determine the Fund's tax liability for 1991 (e.g.,
it does not list either the Fund's or ICI's taxpayer
identification number, and it does not necessarily limit the
Fund's U.S.-source income to the dividends reported therein),
Banker's Trust's 1991 Form 1042 was not signed by ICI or the Fund
under penalties of perjury.
We hold that respondent issued the deficiency notices to ICI
Pension Fund, ICI Pensions Trustee Limited, Trustee, within the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011