- 13 -
petitioner affirms the veracity, accuracy, and completeness of
the return, as declared in the jurat. Following Williams and
Sloan, we therefore hold that the 2000 Form 1040 is not a valid
return, as the jurat has been vitiated by an accompanying
statement. The declarations in the protest document produce just
the kind of "guessing game" about the document's import that we
refused to require the Commissioner to undertake in Sloan and
Williams.6
Moreover, as was the case in Williams, the 2000 Form 1040
herein would also fail at least two parts of the four-part test
of a valid return enunciated in Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. at
777. First, because the jurat has been vitiated, the 2000 Form
1040 has not been executed under penalties of perjury. Second,
we conclude that the 2000 Form 1040 does not represent an honest
and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax
law. Petitioner's contention in the protest document that he is
not an "individual" as that term is used in sections 1 and 3 is
frivolous. While items of income are reported and taxable income
is purportedly computed, the entries on the lines for "tax" and
"total tax" are blank and $0, respectively. Inexplicably, after
reporting both "total tax" and "total payments" as $0, petitioner
6 We note that the 2000 Form 1040 was considered by three
units of respondent before respondent concluded that the document
could not serve as the basis for assessing any Federal income tax
liability for petitioner for 2000.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011