- 7 -
“married, filing separate” return and claimed the standard
deduction. Second, we must decide whether to impose a penalty
under section 6673 for raising frivolous arguments. We address
each issue in turn.
Whether Petitioner Filed a Valid Return for 2002
We begin with whether petitioner filed a valid return for
2002. The documents that petitioner submitted for 2002 are
nearly identical, apart from the monetary amounts, to the
documents at issue in Lange. We found that statements qualifying
the jurat and disclaiming liability in general vitiated the
jurat, and therefore no valid return had been filed. See Lange
v. Commissioner, supra (citing Sloan v. Commissioner, 53 F.3d
799, 800 (7th Cir. 1995), affg. 102 T.C. 137; Williams v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136 (2000); Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C.
766, 777 (1984), affd. 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986)). Because
petitioner vitiated the jurat in the same manner with respect to
the documents he submitted for 2002, and based on our holding in
Lange, we conclude that the documents petitioner submitted for
2002 do not constitute a valid return.3 Accordingly, petitioner
is liable for the late filing addition under section 6651(a)(1).4
3Nor do the documents petitioner sent to the Ogden Service
Center on May 22, 2004, after the deficiency notice was issued to
petitioner, constitute a valid return. The Form 1040X had the
same “under protest, without prejudice” language and included the
same arguments petitioner included in the 38-page protest sent to
the Memphis Service Center.
4We further find that petitioner’s frivolous protestations
constitute neither reasonable cause nor lack of willful neglect
for failure to file a return.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011