ga1150 wrote:At any rate, what you are stating is that there is no requirement for the witness to "tell the truth" until the oath is sworn...
I never said that.
ga1150 wrote:much as with the quasi-jurat on a Form 1040. That is why the IRS will not accept a Form 1040 without that being signed.
The reason the IRS will not accept an unsigned return is that the statute requires that the return be signed. The IRS is simply following the law that Congress wrote.
ga1150 wrote:Or, if you add something to the effect of "Signed under Duress", or "Signed as Required By Law" to the quasi-jurat prior to signing.
If you're suggesting that adding those words to the jurat make the jurat and the return invalid, you're wrong again. There are court decisions upholding the validity of returns signed with those words added.
ga1150 wrote:This is quite telling. Why in the world would they not be able to accept a form without the oath that the 'witness' signing it is telling the truth? Isn't the filer required by law to file the form and the information given be true? Does the signing of that oath make it even MORE a legal requirement? Or does the signing of the oath make it legal testimony of a witness...and therefore able to be used against the witness as stated in the Privacy Act Notice? If it were compelled, then it would not be available for such use.
I've already explained why I believe that Congress decided to require that returns be signed under penalties of perjury, and you either didn't understand my explanation or didn't like it.
In either case, if you don't think returns should require a jurat, or shouldn't require a signature, write to Congress and ask them to change the law.
And stop whining about it here, because there's nothing anybody here can do to change it.