- 9 -
Even where the taxpayer fails to follow the prescribed
forms, a document will be treated as a valid return for purposes
of section 6651(a) if it satisfies the following: (i) It contains
sufficient data to calculate tax liability; (ii) it purports to
be a return; (iii) it represents an honest and reasonable attempt
to satisfy the requirements of the tax law; and (iv) it is
executed under penalties of perjury. Beard v. Commissioner, 82
T.C. 766, 777 (1984), affd. 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986).
In determining the validity of a return, this and other
courts have generally held that alterations of the language of
the jurat itself invalidates a return. See Hettig v. United
States, 845 F.2d 794, 795 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam); Mosher v.
Commissioner, 775 F.2d 1292, 1294 (5th Cir. 1985) (per curiam);
Borgeson v. United States, 757 F.2d 1071, 1073 (10th Cir. 1985)
(per curiam); United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 834 (7th Cir.
1980); Cupp v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 68, 78-79, affd. without
published opinion 559 F.2d 1207 (3d Cir. 1977); Andrews v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-281; Hodge v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1998-242; Counts v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-561,
affd. 774 F.2d 426 (11th Cir. 1985).
Where statements are added that do not modify the specific
language of the jurat, the validity of the return depends upon
whether the additional statements disclaim liability or otherwise
qualify the jurat by casting doubt on the jurat's declaration
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011