Nathan T. OLPIN - Page 8




                                        - 8 -                                         

          Reaves v. Commissioner, 31 T.C. 690, 713 (1958), affd. 295 F.2d             
          336 (5th Cir. 1961); Dixon v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 338, 346-348            
          (1957).                                                                     
               Petitioner acknowledges the "traditional general" rule                 
          requiring signatures on tax returns but contends that the                   
          unsigned 1040 Form sent to the IRS for tax year 1995 is a valid             
          return because both he and his former spouse intended to file a             
          joint return, and they inadvertently failed to sign the purported           
          return.  Petitioner relies on two arguments: (1) Recent Federal             
          law has eliminated the manual signature requirement, and (2) the            
          facts of this case fall within an exception to the general rule             
          requiring tax returns to be signed.2                                        

               2  Petitioner also suggests that the IRS is required to                
          abide by its initial processing of the purported return as the              
          joint return of petitioner and Mrs. Olpin.  The IRS' processing             
          of the purported return and its acceptance of petitioner's                  
          payments of the tax liability reflected on the form, however, can           
          not cure the absence of a signature.  See Lucas v. Pilliod Lumber           
          Co., 281 U.S. 245 (1930)(finding that no IRS officer had the                
          power to override the requirement that a tax return be signed for           
          purposes of the statute of limitations); Vaira v. Commissioner,             
          52 T.C. 986, 1004 (1969), revd. on other issues 444 F.2d 770                
          (3d Cir. 1971); Smart v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-279.                 
               Although there is a case suggesting that the actions of the            
          IRS may constitute "acceptance" of an unsigned return, the                  
          present case is distinguishable.  In Dowell v. Commissioner, 614            
          F.2d 1263, 1266-1267 (10th Cir. 1980), vacated and remanded 465             
          U.S. 1001 (1984), the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit                
          determined that the IRS, in relying on unsigned amended tax                 
          returns to convict taxpayers of willfully filing fraudulent                 
          returns and to determine additional taxes due, had "accepted" the           
          amended returns and could no longer argue that there was no                 
          limitation period for assessment of tax shown on the original               
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011