- 11 -
with the form prescribed by the Secretary. Petitioner argues
that his disclaimer is “nowhere near the jurat;” therefore, he
executed a valid return.
It is true that petitioner has carefully avoided adding
language within the jurat box. We, however, believe that this is
just another attempt by a taxpayer to alter the essence of the
jurat and the Form 1040 without actually tampering with the
preprinted form. While not physically deleting, altering, or
adding words to the jurat, the disclaimer negated the meaning of
the jurat. The jurat states that the signatory declares, under
penalties of perjury, that the return is true, correct, and
complete. The disclaimer at a minimum calls into question the
veracity, accuracy, and completeness of the disclaimer 1040 and
can be construed as a denial of the jurat altogether. Although
petitioner physically signed the return below the jurat, his
disclaimer, in effect, vitiated his verification of the
truthfulness of the return as required by the regulations
prescribed by the Secretary and by section 6065.
We have previously stated that the acceptance of documents
which vary from the form prescribed by the Secretary
adversely affects the form’s useability by respondent.
The tampered form, * * *, must be handled by special
procedures and must be withdrawn from normal processing
channels. * * *, it substantially impedes the
Commissioner’s physical task of handling and verifying
tax returns. * * * [Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. at
776-777.]
See also Reiff v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1169, 1177 (1981). We
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011