Robert D. Beard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Sixth Circuit

Robert D. Beard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

793 F.2d 139, 58 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5290, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 26374

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 24, 1986

Docket84-1698

StatusPublished

Cited by279 cases

This text of 793 F.2d 139 (Robert D. Beard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert D. Beard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 793 F.2d 139, 58 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5290, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 26374 (6th Cir. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

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 *140 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).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 *140 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

793 F.2d 139, 58 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5290, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 26374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-d-beard-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca6-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack