Beard v. Commissioner
6th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Geric Brown v. United States of America
- 2025Jack Donald Supinger Tax Ct.
- 2025Marine Wholesale & Warehouse Co. Bankr. C.D. Cal.
- 2025Jack Donald Supinger, Petitioner T.C.
- 2024In Re: John Salvador v. United States 9th Cir.
- 2024Cortez v. U.S. Internal Revenue Service E.D. Cal.
- 2024Brian Dean Swanson Tax Ct.
- 2024Lagerkvist v. United States N.D. Ind.
- 2024Brian Dean Swanson, Petitioner T.C.
- 2023Ya Global Investments, LP F.K.A. Cornell Capital Partners, LP, Yorkville Advisors, GP LLC, Tax Matters Partner and Ya Global Investments, LP F.K.A. Cornell Capital Partners, LP, Yorkville Advisors, LLC, Tax Matters Partner Tax Ct.
Cites 2 statutes
- General requirement of return, statement, or list
- Failure to file tax return or to pay tax
Cites 3 cases
- Counts v. Commissioner
- Eisner v. Macomber
- Beard v. Commissioner
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Robert D. BEARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Attorneys
- Robert D. Beard, Carleton, Mich., pro se.
- Fred T. Goldberg, Jr., Chief Counsel, I.R.S., Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Michael L. Paup, Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Richard Farber, Farley P. Katz, for respondent-appellee.
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).