- 7 -
drafted by taxpayers that do not comply with the forms prescribed
by the Secretary will nevertheless be treated as valid returns,
for purposes of the statute of limitations, if they contain
certain elements. See Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U.S. 386
(1984); Commissioner v. Lane-Wells Co., 321 U.S. 219 (1944);
Zellerbach Pager Co. v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 172 (1934); Lucas v.
Pilliod Lumber Co., 281 U.S. 245 (1930); Florsheim Bros. Drygoods
Co. v. United States, 280 U.S. 453 (1930). In Beard v.
Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766, 777 (1984), affd. 793 F.2d 139 (6th
Cir. 1986), we summarized the Supreme Court’s test for a valid
return as follows:
First, there must be sufficient data to calculate [the]
tax liability; second, the document must purport to be
a return; third, there must be an honest and reasonable
attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax law; and
fourth, the taxpayer must execute the return under
penalties of perjury.
The fourth requirement is the same requirement found in section
6065 and can be satisfied by signing the jurat on the Form 1040.
In Beard, we applied the Supreme Court’s test in our
analysis of whether the document at issue was a tax return for
purposes of section 6651(a)(1). See id.; see also Martin
Fireproofing Profit Sharing Plan & Trust v. Commissioner, 92 T.C.
1173 (1989) (applying Beard in section 6033 context); Dunham v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-52 (applying Beard in the section
6651(f) context). We see no reason why the same test should not
apply in determining whether a document constitutes a tax return
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011