Fortunato J. Mendes - Page 41

                                       - 41 -                                         
               GOEKE, J., concurring:  I agree with the reasoning and the             
          result reached by the majority.  I write regarding the                      
          application of section 6654 only to clarify why the approach used           
          in this case is consistent with our normal practice of applying             
          the return test set forth in Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766             
          (1984), affd. per curiam 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986).                      
               We have applied the Beard test in many different contexts.1            
          We have even relied on Beard in determining whether a return was            
          filed and the taxpayers were liable for the addition to tax under           

               1See, e.g., Swanson v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 111, 123-125             
          (2003) (whether a substitute for return constituted a return                
          within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. sec. 523(a)(1)(B) (2000));                  
          Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136, 140 (2000) (accuracy-               
          related penalty under section 6662(a)); ICI Pension Fund v.                 
          Commissioner, 112 T.C. 83, 88 (1999) (period of limitations under           
          sec. 6501); Galuska v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 661, 668-669 (1992)            
          (statutory limitations on time for filing claims for credit or              
          refund or limitations on any amount of any credit or refund                 
          allowable for purposes of secs. 6011(a), 6511(b), and 6512(b)),             
          affd. 5 F.3d 195 (7th Cir. 1993); Martin Fireproofing v.                    
          Commissioner, 92 T.C. 1173, 1192 (1989) (addition to tax for                
          failure to timely file under sec. 6651(a)(1) and filing of                  
          information return under sec. 6033); Beard v. Commissioner, 82              
          T.C. 766, 780 (1984) (applying test for purposes of secs. 6011,             
          6012, 6072, and 6651(a)(1)), affd. per curiam 793 F.2d 139 (6th             
          Cir. 1986); Rodriguez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-153                  
          (collection case under sec. 6330 where issue was whether returns            
          were filed for purposes of deciding whether respondent’s failure            
          to consider offer in compromise was an abuse of discretion);                
          Dunham v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-52 (fraudulent failure to           
          file under sec. 6651(f)); Eckel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-           
          174 (addition to tax for substantial underpayment under former              
          sec. 6661); Hintenberger v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-36                
          (return status under sec. 6013), affd. without published opinion            
          922 F.2d 848 (11th Cir. 1990); Counts v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.           
          1984-561 (addition to tax for negligence under former sec.                  
          6653(a)), affd. 774 F.2d 426 (11th Cir. 1985).                              






Page:  Previous  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011