- 23 -
2. The Requirements Set Forth in the Beard Case
As previously mentioned, this Court applies a four-part
test, derived by combining the principles of two Supreme Court
cases, to determine whether a filing constitutes a “return”.
Beard v. Commissioner, supra at 777.14 Petitioner fails two
prongs of the test because he did not sign the SFRs and he failed
to make an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the tax laws.
Petitioner was required to file Federal income tax returns
for the years 1993, 1994, and 1995. Petitioner failed to file
tax returns for these years either before or after the
assessment. Respondent prepared SFRs for the tax years in issue.
There is no evidence in the record that petitioner signed the
SFRs. Additionally, there is no evidence that he attempted to
file any returns on his own initiative or that he cooperated with
the Commissioner in a manner that might represent an honest and
reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax law.
On the basis of the facts of this case, no “returns” were filed
14Courts that have addressed the issue of whether particular
documents constitute a “return” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C.
sec. 523(a)(1)(B) have applied the four-part test set forth in
Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766 (1984), affd. 793 F.2d 139
(6th Cir. 1986). See, e.g., In re Hatton, 220 F.3d 1057, 1060-
1061 (9th Cir. 2000); In re Hindenlang, 164 F.3d 1029, 1033 (6th
Cir. 1999); In re Moroney, 90 AFTR 2d 2002-7353, 2003-1 USTC par.
50,117 (E.D. Va. 2002); In re Pierchoski, 243 Bankr. 639, 642
(Bankr. S.D. Pa. 1999); In re Billman, 221 Bankr. 281, 282
(Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1998); In re McGrath, 217 Bankr. 389, 392
(Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1997).
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011