# Beard v. Comm'r

> United States Tax Court · May 24, 1984 · 82 T.C. 766

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4485192

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert D. Beard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- **Court:** United States Tax Court
- **Decided:** May 24, 1984
- **Citations:** 82 T.C. 766; 82 T.C. No. 60; 1984 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 66
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nims
- **Judges:** Whitaker,Fay,Simpson,Sterrett,Goffe,Wiles,Wilbur,Nims,Korner,Shields,Hamblen,Cohen,Clapp,Jacobs,Nims,Sterrett,Wiles,Hamblen,Cohen,Clapp,Chabot,Swift
- **Cited by:** 317 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4485192

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”
- holding return was invalid when taxpayer made alterations to Form 1040 that allowed taxpayer to claim a refund

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4485192. Public record. Not legal advice.