- 9 -
as a return.4 See Andrews v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-281;
Hodge v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-242; Counts v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-561. For example, in Sloan v.
Commissioner, supra at 141, immediately following the preprinted
text of the jurat and immediately above the taxpayer’s signature
(i.e., within the jurat box), the taxpayer wrote “Denial and
Disclaimer attached as part of this Form.” The following
statement was attached to the Form 1040:
4 We note that some courts have found that the addition of
protest language to the Form 1040 will not invalidate the form as
a return. In McCormick v. Peterson, 73 AFTR 2d 94-597, 94-1 USTC
par. 50,026 (E.D.N.Y. 1993), the court held that the addition of
the words “under protest” to the jurat did not alter the meaning
of the jurat and thus did not invalidate the Form 1040 as a
return; see also Berger v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-76
(holding the addition of a disclaimer statement which declared
that the return was signed “under duress by court order” did not
alter the jurat in such a way as to invalidate the return); Todd
v. United States, 849 F.2d 365, 367 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that
the addition of the words “signed involuntarily under penalty of
statutory punishment” below the jurat did not make the Form 1040
a frivolous return under section 6702). But see In re Schmitt v.
United States, 140 Bankr. 571, 572 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1992)
(holding the addition of the words “signed under duress see
statement attached” to the jurat invalidated the return).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011