- 6 -
return from petitioner for the year in issue. We find that
respondent met his burden of production under section 7491(c),
and, as a result, petitioner must come forward with evidence
sufficient to persuade the Court that respondent’s determination
that petitioner is liable for the section 6651(a)(1) addition to
tax is incorrect. See Rodriguez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2003-105. In order to determine whether a tax return is valid, we
follow the test enunciated in Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766,
777 (1984), affd. 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986) (Beard test):
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.
We have applied the Beard test to determine whether a return is
valid for purposes of section 6651(a)(1). See, e.g., Cabirac v.
Commissioner, 120 T.C. 163, 169 n.10 (2003); Beard v.
Commissioner, supra at 780; Unroe v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1985-149; Counts v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-561, affd. 774
F.2d 426 (11th Cir. 1985).
The critical requirement that there must be “an honest and
reasonable attempt” to satisfy the tax law is clearly not met.
Petitioner’s attachment of two pages of tax-protester arguments
to the Form 1040 contained arguments that have been consistently
rejected by courts. Further, petitioner’s denial of tax
liability and refusal to self-assess on the Form 1040 does not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011