- 8 -
for purposes of section 6662(a).
We first determine whether the disclaimer 1040 complies with
the form prescribed by the Secretary. Although petitioner used a
Form 1040, petitioner added the disclaimer to the form.
Respondent contends that the addition of the disclaimer to the
Form 1040 vitiated petitioner’s signature under the jurat.
In the past, we have analyzed the effect of tax protesters’
alterations to the Form 1040, and in particular to the jurat, and
determined whether the altered Form 1040 constituted a valid
return. In the beginning, tax protesters simply crossed out the
entire text of the jurat, and we held that the Forms 1040 were
not valid returns. See Cupp v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 68, 78-79,
affd. without published opinion 559 F.2d 1207 (3d Cir. 1977); see
also Mosher v. Internal Revenue Service, 775 F.2d 1292, 1294 (5th
Cir. 1985)(per curiam). Next, tax protesters deleted particular
words from the jurat such as “under penalties of perjury” and/or
“true, correct, and complete”. In those cases, we held that the
Forms 1040 did not constitute valid returns. See Sochia v.
Commissioner, supra; Jenkins v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-
617.
Recently, tax protesters have begun to add to rather than
strike out the text of the jurat. We have generally found that
the addition of language to the jurat invalidated the Form 1040
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011