Don’t Forget to Sign the Darned Return!
So you go through all the hassle of getting your records together and getting that return assembled, but at the eleventh hour, you send that joint return to the Revenooers without having your spouse sign the darned thing.
Bad Karma – as learned the hard way by taxpayers Mr. and Mrs. Reifler, who the Tax Court recently slammed down hard as technically not having actually filed a timely return at all in the circumstances!
Mr. and Mrs. Reifler, you see, were married folk who even employed an accountant to prepare their returns. Mr. Reifler had significant business experience. For tax year 2000, Mr. Reifler signed the return and left it for the Mrs. to sign but she didn’t – for whatever reason. Mr. Reifler didn’t notice the omission when he mailed it to IRS before the October 15, 2001 extended due date.
IRS and the taxpayers both acknowledged that Mrs. Reifler relied on her hubby to handle the family financial and tax matters, including preparation and filing of the tax returns, and that she, indeed, intended to file a joint return for 2000.
In any case, the IRS Service Center returned the 2000 return to the taxpayers because of the missing signature (as is the usual procedure in our experience) though the taxpayers claim there was no explanatory information from the IRS regarding why they sent the package back. Mr. Reifler thought nothing of it because he had requested copies of his tax returns from time to time from IRS for various business reasons. But unfortunately, upon receipt of the returned return, the taxpayers did not subsequently send the original return back to IRS with the requisite signature.
Sooooo, in 2002, IRS issued a delinquency notice to the taxpayers, informing them that the 2000 return had not actually been received in Uncle Sam’s grubby hands, whereupon the taxpayers then did both sign and return a second copy of their 1040. And it was this second copy which IRS officially accepted as the originally filed 2000 return – albeit delinquent at this point.
The ensuing beef between the taxpayers and the IRS led the parties to an eventual day in the Tax Court, where the taxpayers made two arguments in support of their claim that the original 2000 return (without Mrs.’ Signature) was validly and timely filed.
- They first argued the so-called “substantial compliance doctrine,” claiming that their tax return need not have been “perfect” to be valid, as sanctioned by the Supreme Court previously in the Zellerbach Paper Co. case, noting that if a return “purports to be a return, is sworn to as such…and evinces an honest and genuine endeavor to satisfy the law,” it will be treated as a return.
- The second argument advanced by the Reiflers was based on the so-called “tacit consent doctrine,” premised on the notion that absent Mrs. R’s signature, they truly intended to file a joint tax return.
“No Bueno” concluded the Tax Court on both counts. And indeed, adding insult to injury as
usually happens, the Court also found that the taxpayers did not exercise ordinary business care and prudence in handling the original 2000 return when IRS sent it back, therefore concluding that the failure to file penalty was applicable!
Moral of the story? Make sure that both hubby and wifey sign before they seal and deliver!
CONSULT YOUR TAX ADVISOR – This article contains general information about various tax matters. You should consult your CPA regarding the implications to your own particular situation.
Jeff Quinn, the author of this article, is a shareholder in Ashley Quinn, CPAs and Consultants, Ltd., with offices in Incline Village and Reno. He welcomes comments at firstname.lastname@example.org.