Signing a tax return...

[David Merrill]

So, if I'm filling out all zeros on my 1040, and I had like $100k in income. I sign the form, which clearly states that I agree that I'm telling the truth. But I'm not. I just made a verifiably false statement, since it can be proven that I had that stuff. I guess I just perjured myself.

That verifies that there is no law to report Income or pay Income Tax. Like Wesley Marc says, there is proper law about perjury in place.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[webhick]

So, if I'm filling out all zeros on my 1040, and I had like $100k in income. I sign the form, which clearly states that I agree that I'm telling the truth. But I'm not. I just made a verifiably false statement, since it can be proven that I had that stuff. I guess I just perjured myself.

That verifies that there is no law to report Income or pay Income Tax. Like Wesley Marc says, there is proper law about perjury in place.



Regards,

David Merrill.

No, it's verifiably false that I submitted zeros when it can be proven that I had income. Please check Dan's FAQ regarding the "no income" stuff. I'm not discussing tax protester garbage with you, David.

[LPC]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Imalawman]

If I'm not mistaken, I think this whole thread is geared toward the Judge's decision to require Petey to file a correct 1040. Thus, this whole thread is heading to a point in which new guy will suddenly state how petey is committing purjury by signing the "correct" 1040. More TP nonsense.

[David Merrill]

I'm not discussing tax protester garbage with you, David.

Yes, you are.

[webhick]

I'm not discussing tax protester garbage with you, David.

Yes, you are.

Put my sentence back in context:

Please check Dan's FAQ regarding the "no income" stuff. I'm not discussing tax protester garbage with you, David.

Notice how I referenced the "no income" right before my sentence? Yeah, that's the garbage I was talking about.

I think the Jurat issue is kind of a valid question on some fronts and is not necessarily a tax protester argument because I've heard average tax payers express concerns over it.

[The Observer]

David Merrill wrote:
Quote:
I'm not discussing tax protester garbage with you, David.



Yes, you are.

How refreshing - David admits that he espouses garbage. Will wonders ever cease?