- 36 -
VASQUEZ, J., concurring: I concur with the result reached
by the majority that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax
pursuant to section 6654. I write separately, however, to
emphasize that our well-established precedent enunciated in Beard
v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766, 777 (1984), affd. per curiam 793
F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986), resolves this issue.
The Internal Revenue Code does not define the term “return”.
See sec. 6011; Swanson v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 111, 122-123
(2003). Based on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Zellerbach
Paper Co. v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 172, 180 (1934), and Florsheim
Bros. Drygoods Co. v. United States, 280 U.S. 453, 464 (1930),
this Court has established a four-part test to determine whether
a document submitted by the taxpayer is a valid return. In order
to qualify as a return, the document must meet the following
requirements:
First, there must be sufficient data to calculate 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.
Beard v. Commissioner, supra at 777. We apply this test to
“returns” for purposes of section 6501,1 section 6651(a)(1),2
1 See, e.g., ICI Pension Fund v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 83,
88-89 (1999); Joseph v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-77.
2 See, e.g., Cabirac v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 163, 168-170
(continued...)
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011