- 19 -
1998, 1999, 2001, and 2002, petitioner is still liable for the
addition to tax under * * * [section 6651(a)(1)] for failure to
timely file his tax returns for those years.” In making that
argument, respondent apparently ignores the extensions for time
to file that are reflected in his own Certificate of Official
Record (Literal Transcript) for each year. Taking those
extensions into account, it appears that only the 1999 Form 1040
was submitted to the IRS after the expiration of the extension
period, and that that Form 1040, based upon the August 17, 2001,
signature date, was delinquent by more than 1 year.10
Petitioner argues that his “failure to file * * * was never
proved under the law * * * [and that] therefore the penalty does
not apply.”
2. Requirement To File a Valid Return; Petitioner’s
Filing Status
Recently, in Lange v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-176, we
described the requirements for making a valid return:
10 That the 1999 Form 1040 was submitted more than a year
after the Aug. 15, 2000, extended due date (so that petitioner is
subject to the maximum 25-percent addition to tax under sec.
6651(a)(1)) is indicated by both the Aug. 17, 2001, signature
date and respondent’s letter to petitioner describing the 1999
Form 1040 as a “frivolous” return, which was dated Nov. 13, 2001.
Although that evidence is sufficient to support such a finding
and the resulting conclusion that petitioner is subject to the
maximum 25-percent penalty for 1999, for reasons discussed infra,
we are able to reach the same conclusion on the ground that
petitioner’s handwritten and typed additions and his protest
attached to the 1999 Form 1040 justify respondent’s treating it
as an invalid return.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007