- 39 -
purpose, or have any effect, under the Code. In re Hindenlang,
164 F.3d 1029, 1034 (6th Cir. 1999) (document filed post-
assessment not a valid return under Beard); In re Hatton, 220
F.3d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir. 2000) (“belated acceptance of
responsibility * * * does not constitute an honest and reasonable
attempt to comply with the requirements of the tax law” when
taxpayer filed a document purporting to be a return post-
assessment). This inquiry is proper under the third prong of the
Beard test.
Petitioner’s 1988 tax return was due on or before April 17,
1989. See secs. 6072(a), 7503. In this case, petitioner filed
his 1988 “return” on or about May 14, 1997, more than 8 years
after the due date. This was more than 2 years after he received
the May 3, 1995, notice of deficiency, which certainly put him on
notice that his 1988 return had not been filed.17 Further,
petitioner did not file his purported “return” until more than 21
months after he filed his petition with the Court on July 17,
1995. The adjustments in the notice of deficiency were
determined without the benefit of petitioner’s “return”. In
applying the facts as found by the majority opinion to the test
set forth in Beard, it is evident under the facts of this case
that petitioner’s filing of the purported “return” was not an
honest and reasonable attempt to comply with the tax laws.
17 It appears petitioner was put on notice that his 1988
tax return had not been filed as early as June 14, 1990, when he
received a letter from his attorney, who was preparing his tax
returns, which stated she had not yet filed a return for 1988.
See majority op. p. 21.
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011