Court Opinion

ID: 9403813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 19:02:44.618047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:09.473229
License: Public Domain

United States Tax Court

                               T.C. Memo. 2023-75

   NOEL M. PARDUCCI AND KENNETH L. PARDUCCI, ET AL., 1
                       Petitioners

                                          v.

              COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
                          Respondent

                                    —————

Docket Nos. 20894-19,           6791-20,                     Filed June 21, 2023.
            10830-20,          17749-21,
            17771-21.

                                    —————

Jonathan D. Mishkin, for petitioners in Docket No. 20894-19.

Richard C. Gano and David J. Warner, for petitioners in Docket
Nos. 6791-20 and 10830-20.

Dennis Simpson (trustee), for petitioner in Docket No. 17749-21.

Dennis Simpson, pro se in Docket No. 17771-21.

Kelley A. Blaine, Janice B. Geier, Karen O. Myrick, Alex R. Halverson,
and Caitlin A. Homewood, for respondent.

         MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

      BUCH, Judge: The Court held a partial trial in these cases on the
limited question of whether the Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax

       1 Cases of the following petitioners are consolidated herewith: Jeffrey D. Hoyal

and Lori D. Hoyal, Docket No. 6791-20; Crater Lake Trust, David Hoyal, Trustee,
Docket No. 10830-20; Scenic Trust, Dennis Simpson, Special Trustee, Docket
No. 17749-21; and Dennis Lee Simpson, Docket No. 17771-21.

                                 Served 06/21/23
                                    2

[*2] Return, filed for petitioner Dennis Lee Simpson for 2013 is actually
his return.

       Mr. Simpson’s 2013 Form 1040 was not signed by him nor
accompanied by any document showing that he authorized anyone to
sign it on his behalf. An individual return must be signed by the
individual required to file the return or by an agent authorized to sign
on behalf of the individual. If the return is signed by someone authorized
to do so, that authorization must accompany the return. Because Mr.
Simpson neither signed his 2013 Form 1040 nor included a document
showing that he authorized an agent to sign it on his behalf, the return
filed as Mr. Simpson’s 2013 Form 1040 is not a valid return.

                         FINDINGS OF FACT

      Mr. Simpson’s purported 2013 federal income tax return was filed
on October 15, 2014. The return included two signatures: one for Curtis
Ankerberg, a certified public accountant who signed as the preparer,
and one purporting to be for Mr. Simpson. Both signatures were dated
October 15, 2014.

       How Mr. Simpson’s purported signature came to be on that return
is unclear. Mr. Ankerberg prepared returns for Mr. Simpson and other
petitioners involved in these consolidated cases. Petitioner Noel
Parducci, who at the time was an administrative assistant to Mr.
Simpson and petitioner Jeffrey Hoyal, obtained the returns from Mr.
Ankerberg and delivered them to Mr. Hoyal in his office. A short time
later, Ms. Parducci took envelopes containing tax returns to the
Jacksonville, Oregon, post office for mailing. Mr. Simpson’s purported
return was mailed from Jacksonville, Oregon, and we infer that one of
those envelopes contained that return. Notably, Mr. Simpson was not
present at Mr. Hoyal’s office and lived in Southern California at the
time.

       On August 2, 2021, the Commissioner issued a notice of deficiency
to Mr. Simpson making adjustments to what purported to be his return.
While residing in California, Mr. Simpson filed a Petition, assigned
Docket No. 17771-21. While the parties were preparing these cases for
trial, Mr. Simpson questioned whether the return upon which his notice
of deficiency was predicated was his return.

      On February 22, 2023, the Commissioner filed a Motion to
Calendar for Hearing the issue of “whether the tax return for petitioner
Dennis Simpson for tax year 2013, upon which the notice of deficiency
                                            3

[*3] issued to Mr. Simpson was based, was signed or otherwise
authorized by Mr. Simpson.” This new issue arose long after the
Petitions in these cases were filed, and the resolution of this issue would
likely affect the discovery and ultimate issues to be tried in these cases.
Both Mr. Simpson and the Commissioner provided Exhibits and
Prehearing Memoranda. Various witnesses testified, including James
Greene, a forensic document examiner, who opined that the signature
on the 2013 return was not Mr. Simpson’s signature. Mr. Simpson
testified that he neither signed the return nor authorized anyone to sign
the return on his behalf. No one offered any contradictory evidence.

                                      OPINION

        “Failure to satisfy the requirements for filing a return is fatal to
the validity . . . of the return.” Elliott v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 125, 128
(1999). Section 6011(a) 2 provides that “any person made liable for any
tax . . . shall make a return . . . according to the forms and regulations
prescribed by the Secretary.” A return required to be made must
“contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the
penalties of perjury,” I.R.C. § 6065, and “be signed in accordance with
forms or regulations prescribed by the Secretary,” I.R.C. § 6061(a). A
return is signed if it is (1) signed by the individual required to make the
return or (2) “signed for the taxpayer by an agent who is duly authorized
in accordance with paragraph (a)(5) or (b) of [Treasury Regulation]
§ 1.6012-1 to make such return.” Treas. Reg. § 1.6061-1(a).

I.      Whether Mr. Simpson Signed the 2013 Return

       Mr. Simpson argues that the 2013 Form 1040 is not a valid return
because he did not personally sign it. Although Mr. Simpson’s 2013
Form 1040 includes a signature purporting to be his, he contends that
he did not sign the return. Section 6064 provides that an individual’s
name signed on a return is “prima facie evidence for all purposes that
the return . . . was actually signed by him.” But this presumption is not
absolute and can be rebutted. To overcome this presumption, Mr.
Simpson must offer sufficient evidence to prove that the signature on
the return is not his signature. See Soni v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2021-137, at *24.

        2 Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue

Code, Title 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C.), in effect at all relevant times, and regulation references
are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant
times.
                                   4

[*4] Mr. Simpson has established that the signature on his 2013 Form
1040 is not his signature. Mr. Greene, a forensic document examiner,
opined that it is highly probable that the signature on the 2013 Form
1040 is not Mr. Simpson’s signature. He provided the Court with
exemplars of Mr. Simpson’s signature on various documents, and it is
plain that the signature on the 2013 Form 1040 does not match, and is
not similar to, those other signatures. Mr. Simpson did not personally
sign the return.

II.    Whether the Return Was Made by an Authorized Agent

        There is no evidence that Mr. Simpson properly authorized
someone to sign his 2013 Form 1040 on his behalf. Mr. Simpson argues
that he did not authorize an agent to sign the return on his behalf. He
testified, examined witnesses, and provided various documents to
support his position, none of which affects our conclusion. Returns made
by agents must be accompanied by a power of attorney or Form 2848,
Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative. Lombardo v.
Commissioner, 99 T.C. 342, 356 (1992), aff’d sub nom. Davies v.
Commissioner, 68 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 1995); Treas. Reg. § 1.6012-1(a)(5).
Mr. Simpson’s purported 2013 tax return was not accompanied by a
power of attorney or Form 2848. Therefore, the return failed to satisfy
the requirements for returns made by authorized agents. See Mohamed
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-255, at *3–5, *12–13 (finding a
return signed by a tax return preparer and business partner not valid
because no Form 2848 authorizing the business partner to sign on the
taxpayer’s behalf accompanied it). The signature on Mr. Simpson’s
purported 2013 Form 1040 was not made by a properly authorized
agent.

III.   Conclusion

      Mr. Simpson neither signed the 2013 Form 1040 nor properly
authorized an agent to sign it on his behalf.

       An appropriate order will be issued.