-7-
of the documents he allegedly filed, and the court was asked to
decide whether they constituted returns. Id.
In this case, the parties introduced petitioner’s returns as
evidence at trial. Petitioner may not rely on Long to avoid
civil additions to tax under these circumstances.
We followed the Supreme Court’s definition of what
constitutes a return for statute of limitations purposes in Beard
v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766, 777 (1984), affd. per curiam 793
F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986). See Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464
U.S. 386 (1983); Germantown Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 309 U.S.
304 (1940); Zellerbach Paper Co. v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 172
(1934); Florsheim Bros. Drygoods Co. v. United States, 280 U.S.
453 (1930). The four-part test of Beard, applying the Supreme
Court precedents, requires that a document contain sufficient
data to calculate tax liability, purport to be a return,
represent an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the
requirements of the tax law, and be executed by the taxpayer
under penalties of perjury. Beard v. Commissioner, supra at 777.
We have applied this test to cases under section 6651(a)(1) as
well as in cases under other sections of the Code.3 See Cabirac
v. Commissioner, supra at 168-170.
3See Mendes v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 308, 329-330 (2003)
(Vasquez, J., concurring) (citing cases applying this test to
particular sections of the Code). Several Courts of Appeals have
also applied similar tests to determine whether a document is a
return. See, e.g., Moroney v. United States, 352 F.3d 902, 905
(4th Cir. 2003); United States v. Hindenlang, 164 F.3d 1029, 1033
(6th Cir. 1999).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011