Stephen W. Williams - Page 7

                                        - 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