recognizing that courts within the First Circuit, though never officially adopted by the First Circuit, utilized the "Beard" test to define a return under § 523(a)
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that courts within the First Circuit, though never officially adopted by the First Circuit, utilized the "Beard" test to define a return under § 523(a)
- stating that a document will be treated as a valid return if, among other things, it purports to be a return and is executed under penalties of perjury
- holding that an essential element of a valid return is that “the taxpayer must execute the return under penalties of perjury”
- relying on the definition of “return” established by the Supreme Court in Germantown Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 309 U.S. 304, 60 S.Ct. 566, 84 L.Ed. 770 (1940), and Zellerbach Paper Co. v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 172, 55 S.Ct. 127, 79 L.Ed. 264 (1934)
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Briggs v. United States (In re Briggs), 511 B.R. 707 (2014)
Since neither party argued that the Beard test was inapplicable, the Court will examine whether a late filing qualifies as a “return” for dischargeability purposes using the Beard test.
Distinguished by Rhodes v. United States (In re Rhodes), 498 B.R. 357 (2013)
Consequently, these courts conclude, the definition of “return” in § 523(a)(*) is dispositive, and the four-prong Beard test is inapplicable because no need exists to consult it.
The opinion
Nims, J., concurring: I write this concurring opinion only to expressly dissociate myself from the views expressed in a concurring and dissenting opinion in support of petitioner’s travesty tax return. I find it impossible to suppose that the Supreme Court intended its reasoning in Badaracco to be applied so totally out of context as to give intellectual aid and comfort to petitioner and others like him, whose so-called returns on their face make clear a concerted effort to disrupt the tax system.
I fully agree with the reasoning and the result reached in the majority opinion.
Sterrett, Wiles, Hamblen, Cohen, and Clapp, JJ., agree with this concurring opinion.