ROBERT D. BEARD, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the taxpayer's wages are taxable gross income and an altered tax form does not constitute a valid return, thus affirming the Tax Court's summary judgment.
Petitioner challenged a notice of deficiency, arguing his wages were not taxable and his altered tax form was a valid return. The Tax Court granted su…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Summary Judgment Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Robert Beard appeals a United States Tax Court order and decision granting respondent’s motion for summary judgment and assessing petitioner with additional tax and damages. Petitioner filed a petition in the Tax Court challenging a notice of deficiency issued by the respondent, Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The court concluded that no issues of material fact precluded granting respondent’s motion for summary judgment. The court determined that the wages earned by petitioner are taxable; the altered Treasury Form 1040 filed by petitioner did not constitute a return under 26 U.S.C. § 6011 (1982); and that petitioner therefore owed additional tax for willfully filing a late return in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 6651(a)(1), 6653(a) (1982).
Upon review of the record, we conclude no genuine issue of material fact precluded the Tax Court from granting summary judgment to respondent. In our view, petitioner’s wages are taxable as gross income, see Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207, 40 S.Ct. 189, 193, 64 L.Ed. 521 (1920), and petitioner’s altered 1040 form does not constitute a “return” in compliance with 26 U.S.C. § 6011(a) (1982). See Counts v. Commissioner, 774 F. 2d 426, 427 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam).
The decision of the Tax Court is hereby affirmed without sanctions against petitioner, based upon the Tax Court decision reported at 82 T.C. 766 (1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mass. Dep't of Revenue v. Shek, 947 F.3d 770 (11th Cir. 2020)…Before 2005, neither the Bankruptcy Code nor the Internal Revenue Code defined "return." Courts adopted a test developed in the Tax Court known as the Beard test (first fleshed out in Beard v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 82 T.C. 766 (1984), aff'd, 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986)) to determine whether a document analogous to a Form 1040 constitutes a “return" for purposes of dischargeability under the Code.⁵ The Beard test established four requirements a putative return must satisfy to constitute a "return":…
-
In re Justice v. United States, 817 F.3d 738 (11th Cir. 2016)
-
United States v. Klein, 312 B.R. 443 (S.D. Fla. 2004)…represent an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax law. In re Hatton, 220 F.3d 1057, 1060-61 (9th Cir.2000) (emphasis supplied) (citing to Beard v. Comm’r, 82 T.C. 766, 777-78, 1984 WL 15573 (1984), aff'd, 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir.1986)); United States v. Ralph, 266 B.R. 217, 219 (M.D.Fla.2001); In re Billman, 221 B.R. 281, 282 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1998). For ease of reference the last prong is referred to as the “Honest and Reasonable Attempt” prong. The Be…
Authorities Cited
- Eisner v. MacOmber, 252 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1920)
- Counts v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 774 F.2d 426 (11th Cir. 1985)